Amfa's Inability To Represent!

Checking it Out

Veteran
Apr 3, 2003
1,702
0
Comments
Please give the unknowing some info. Many of the supporters of the association here at AA espouse that under the IAM there was 100% contracting out and that the 38% language you have now was an improvement. Not being familiar with your previous contract, my only knowledge was that while amts were not on layoff, contracting out was allowed and if there was a layoff then no more contracting out was permitted until the amt's were recalled. I would appreciate any insight on this issue.
-----------------------------
Reply,

When the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) and Northwest Airlines (NWA) reached a tentative agreement, one of the prouder points of the AMFA negotiating committee was the 38% subcontracting limit where we would finally have a grip on subcontracting. If NWA exceeded the subcontracting limit, there would be a penalty of 100% of the dollar amount of the excedent. AMFA leadership also stated many times that the previous International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers (IAM) agreement did nothing to stop the subcontracting of our work.

The subcontracting language in the previous IAM agreement was simple, all negotiated work as describe in article 2 (Scope of agreement) was our work to be performed by IAM Mechanics and related personnel, period. Nothing in the agreement allowed the Company to subcontract our work. Article 2(F) created a committee to review current subcontracted work. Its goal was to return work back to its IAM members without relinquishing, any right(s) of the Union to file a grievance. Article 2(F)a states:

“… to provide advice to management as to what work could be returned to Company premises to be performed by the Company’s IAM represented employees. …â€

NWA violated the IAM agreement on subcontracting issues. The IAM filed grievances when our work was subcontracted. There were arbitrations over the issue. The IAM won some and lost some, this did not deter the IAM in filing other subcontracting grievances.

When presenting an issue to an arbitrator, the many variables considered by the arbitrator in deciding the grievance include: profitability, overtime, laid off employees, cost of doing the work in-house, is it good business, and so on. One of the biggest factors is the arbitrator himself. Is he pro-labor or pro-business? It has been our experience that most arbitrators are self-employed, pro-business, and believe that the Company has the right to run their business as they see fit.

In the new AMFA agreement, article 2 is basically the same as the previous IAM agreement except for two major changes. Article 2 (F) created a committee to review current subcontracted work. The new language does not include the goal that would return work back to its AMFA members.

The other major change to article 2 is the addition of paragraph (F)3, which defines the allowable subcontracting limits for four separate categories: Airframe and Engine Component, Plant Maintenance, Facilities Maintenance and Ground Operations Cleaners.. Although each category has it’s own limits, I will address the Airframe and Engine Component category. Article 2(F)3,a,1,a states the following:

“Airframe, Engine and Component Subcontracting Outside Vendor Labor dollars (less labor from in sourced work, not including in sourced LMO labor) shall not exceed thirty-eight (38) percent of total labor dollars spent on Outside Vendor Labor plus in-house Labor.â€

Taking this language literally, you could assume that NWA could not subcontract more than 38% of our work, however, contractual language always intertwines with other parts of an agreement, as it does in this case. When you examine the language closely, article 2(F)3,b, defines “Outside Vendor Labor†and “In-house Labor†Our current subcontracting language is completely based on “total labor dollarsâ€. Labor costs at Repair Stations are generally lower than NWA. In fact Repair Stations like the new EADS Aeroframe Services’ facility in Lake Charles, LA, now performs maintenance on Airbus aircraft. Sonny Stern, sales director for EADS Aeroframe Services’ is quoted in the November, 2001 issue of Overhaul & Maintenance magazine that “the facility is earmarked to work on airplanes from the Americas†and blatantly states that it costs major U.S. airlines “roughly double what it costs us†for touch labor. “That’s the lureâ€. NWA generally subcontracts our work because they believe it can be done cheaper. If this is true, than theoretically, compared to the labor costs at NWA, the 38% Subcontracting limit may be more than just 38% of our work.

For example:

Assuming the total labor dollars spent by NWA on Outside Vendor Labor plus in-house Labor totaled one hundred dollars ($100.00), NWA would be allowed to subcontract $38.00 (38% of $100.00). Assume that the total labor cost per hour for one NWA technician is one dollar ($1.00). As stated by Sonny Stern, EADS Aeroframe Services’ (paraphrasing), the labor costs at the Lake Charles facility is half of what it is at major U.S. airlines. Using the above assumption, this would indicate that their total labor cost per hour is fifty-cents ($0.50). Therefore, for every dollar ($1.00) that NWA spends for a technician to perform one (1) hour of maintenance, a subcontractor, like EADS Aeroframe Services’, would be able to perform two (2) hours of the same work.

Assuming it is true that subcontracting facilities can perform maintenance at half the cost of U.S. major airlines, the example above indicates, that NWA would be allowed to subcontract 76% of our work and stay within the contractual limit of 38%, of the total labor dollars spent on Outside Vendor Labor plus in-house Labor. In addition, article 2(F)3,c, gives NWA numerous exceptions to the 38% subcontracting limit that “…shall not apply…â€.

If NWA subcontracted more than 38% of the total labor dollars, not including the exceptions, there would be a violation of article 2(F)3,d and I believe that AMFA would file a grievance.

“If the Company exceeds subcontracting limits, the Company will compensate the Association 100 percent of the dollar amount of the excedent.â€

In our opinion, NWA would exercise their right to present the facts to an arbitrator before paying a penalty. NWA would argue that the listed exceptions are not all-inclusive and therefore, would have the right to add additional exceptions. The statement “includes the following†located in Paragraph (F)3,c,1 will be at the center of attention. An arbitrator will decide if “includes the following†is an all-inclusive list of exceptions or not.

If AMFA is successful and the arbitrator rules in our favor, who wins? The monetary settlement does not go to our members that are laid off, it does not return our members back to work. The monetary settlement goes to the AMFA National (per national policy). So, who really wins? According to our national policy, the only real winners are the AMFA National.

The bottom line, like it or not, there is no limit on how much NWA can subcontract, there is only a penalty for anything subcontracted over the 38%. It would have been in our best interest if the negotiators had listened to some of the former representatives and negotiated language on a man-hour-to-man-hour scenario rather than dollar-to-dollar. A man-hour-to-man-hour scenario would have truly limited subcontracting and protected all of our jobs.

In the end, the new AMFA negotiated language hurts all of us. It allows NWA to subcontract our negotiated work, while our members are being laid off. On the other hand, the IAM subcontracting language, though not bullet proof, protected the membership and did not give any rights to NWA to subcontract our negotiated work.

Did the IAM win all the subcontracting grievances? No, but they did win when IAM members were laid off. Those members, not the union, received any monetary settlement. The injured party is the laid off member, not the Union! Think about it!

Because of the IAM's arbitration, when the company farmed work out in violation of the previous contract language, affected members received their lost pay and the bargaining unit work returned to them. Following are excerpts from these awards:

Arbitrator, Levi Hall, ruled in 1965:

“The agreement has been violated. The record, however, is silent as to any actual damages sustained by the Petitioners. There is a legal maxim that `there is no wrong without a remedy.’ To protect the rights under the agreement, the petitioners are entitled to at least nominal damages ... .â€

Arbitrator, Ronald Haughton, ruled in May 1967:

“The company violated the contract, the question of damages must be considered. Since it has not been shown that any Northwest Airlines Personnel suffered any loss of time or wage … the award simply will be that the protested work be returned to the bargaining unit.â€

Arbitrator, Benjamin Rubenstein, ruled in April 1974:

“NWA did breach Article II © of said agreement when it contracted out to the Boeing Company certain crown skin project work … the approximate number of hours devoted by Boeing employees … to accomplish the crown skin project work … shall be reconstructed and divided among NWA mechanics as determined by the parties at their existing straight time hourly rate.â€

Arbitrator, Gamser’s decision quoted as follows in Arbitrator Rehmus’ ruling:

“ … work performed at company bases is specified to come within the jurisdiction of the IAMAW and be covered by its agreement … and is obvious from … clear language and intent of the Agreement.†The Company was directed to assign to IAMAW members work that had been performed by another union for over 20 years.

Arbitrator, Charles Rehmus, ruled in 1983:

“A reasonable interpretation of the contract in this case is made clear by prior decisions of the System Board. The parties have had twelve (12) previous decisions on the company’s right to contract out work, eight (8) upholding that right and four (4) denying it. The twelve previous decisions … constitute their body of law on whether there exist implicit contractual restraints on the contracting out of work described as within the scope of the bargaining unit, for prior Board decisions are described as `final and binding’ and precedent - setting upon the parties. The contracting out … had a significant adverse impact upon the bargaining unit members in that it permitted their numbers to be reduced … gradual erosion of the bargaining unit took place beginning shortly after the subcontract occurred. The subcontract, while it may not have caused it, clearly assisted such erosion to continue. The work subcontracted here is core, routine work which the contract mandates shall be done by the bargaining unit. The company’s decision denied unit members the right to continue to do work which they had always routinely performed, the subcontract contributed to erosion of the bargaining unit; indirectly but nonetheless inevitably.â€

“Grievance No. 10783 and all other pending grievances relating to the contracting out of the work … at the Honolulu base are sustained. This work shall be returned to members of the bargaining unit as expeditiously as possible.â€

With this background, it is difficult to understand how we have arrived at a position where the company is contracting out our work and laying off our members. Unfortunately, now we have to deal with new AMFA contract language, language that is untested in arbitration and it is already in dispute. Even worse, is the fact that the agreement is in dispute at a time when so many jobs are dependent on it. With so many jobs in jeopardy, what is needed, is well established and tested language as contained in the previous contract. We NOW have subcontracting language that ALLOWS FAR MORE WORK TO BE FARMED-OUT than we were led to believe at contract ratification. One thing for sure, at this point, we have no iron clad language, nor do we have layoff protection that we were led to believe existed. I believe that if we did, we would not be having this dispute. The only decent thing to do for the laid off employees, at this point, is to expedite all disputed issues to arbitration as quickly as possible in order to determine what is going to happen to their jobs so they can get on with their lives. Compliments of amfanuts.

If Amfa were to get in at AA the Arbitration decisions stay with the TWU! Amfa starts over! With no past history and the poor language in contracts Amfa has negotiated, it's clear, we could very well be looking at massive work outsourced do to the lack of representation under Amfa!
 
cio, you are losing the battle here!!! Why did NWA have to use three (3) force-majures to lay anybody off at NWA????? AMFA lost the first smaller force-majure of around 800 mechanic and related because of 9/11. They lost it because the industry says 9/11 event was in fact a force-majureable event. The other two cases are still pending with a very likely outcome of "make them whole". Complete back pay plus any expenses for being layed off.

We continue to give concession at the rate of 3 percent a year extra above and beyond the original concessions and that is if you don't include the health care cost because the twu gave up the "pilot me to cap".
 
Let us pray...

Let us pray for CIO...whose desperation is blatantly obvious by the length of his ramblings...for he fails to mention his beloved TeAAm TWU's failures...
Let us pray that the heavy burden of the TWU's misrepresentations and out right sell outs are lifted from our shoulders...

For the end of the SRP/OSM scam...we pray
For the end of pre-funding medical retirement...we pray
For the end of soaring and unrestricted out of pocket medical expenses due to the TWU's failure to negotiate a cap...we pray
For the elimination of the Flex-Benefits scam...we pray
For the establishment of a real SCOPE clause...we pray
For the return of push backs and de-icing...we pray
For the return of paid lunches...we pray
For the return of lost vacation days...we pray
For the return of lost sick days...we pray
For the return of full pay for the first 2 sick days...we pray
For the return of the AMFA negotiated pay rate...we pray
For the return of shift differential...we pray
For the adherance to seniority rules, especialy during RIF's...we pray
For the elimination of secret letters of agreement...we pray
For accountability in union leadership...we pray
For the ousting of the TWU as bargaining agent for AMT and related... we especialy prey
For CIO and TeAAm TWU...that they stop their endless disinformation and attempts to deceive...that they cease their shameless charade...that they end their slogan unionism and cease to be charicatures of union men...
We pray
B)
 
Meahwhile, back at the AA Ranch where we work.

The TWU gave away industry leading PAY and BENEFIT concessions while TWU Leaders received healthy if not absurd raises...

/index.php...=post&id=137233


The Team TWU anti-AMFA campaign rages on, despite the fact that we work for AA and there are not TWU solutions to our demise.
 
SO CIO,

Can you explain to me why every Northwest mechanic I have ever talked to says "WE WILL NEVER GO BACK TO THE IAM!"? Can you explain to me why the IAM allowed Northwest's DC-10's to be sent to Signapore? Looks like the IAM contracting commitee dropped the ball on that one. CIO,can you explain why the IAM allowed engines to be sent to PRATT+WHITNEY,looks like your great IAM contracting commitee failed on that one too!
 
PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH said:
SO CIO,

Can you explain to me why every Northwest mechanic I have ever talked to says "WE WILL NEVER GO BACK TO THE IAM!"? Can you explain to me why the IAM allowed Northwest's DC-10's to be sent to Signapore? Looks like the IAM contracting commitee dropped the ball on that one. CIO,can you explain why the IAM allowed engines to be sent to PRATT+WHITNEY,looks like your great IAM contracting commitee failed on that one too!
How many NWA employees have you talked to? Did you go to MSP and randomly talk to employees there, or is your circle of people restricted to the "road show" group? The NWA amts that make the AMFA informationals are almost by definition all anti-IAM and pro-AMFA.
 
I have spoken with about 50+ of them, some of them were from MSP,some from NW's line stations. Some of these mechanics I used to work with at BRANIFF/DALFORT. Others I have met on picket lines or on fieldtrips around the AA system. The only NW mechanics I have heard slamming AMFA are the EX-IAM goons on that spew their garbage on these websites. J7915 I'll bet the only NW mechanic that you've ever talked to is that IAM goon TEAMTWU has been parading around AFW,TULSA,+MCI
 
j7915 said:
How many NWA employees have you talked to? Did you go to MSP and randomly talk to employees there, or is your circle of people restricted to the "road show" group? The NWA amts that make the AMFA informationals are almost by definition all anti-IAM and pro-AMFA.
The proof is in the fact that there is no valid card drive going at any AMFA represented airline. Instead, AMFA now represents mechanics at eight carriers and has filed for an election at the ninth in the industry and the largest carrier in the world to boot.
 
Checking it Out said:
If Amfa were to get in at AA the Arbitration decisions stay with the TWU! Amfa starts over! With no past history and the poor language in contracts Amfa has negotiated, it's clear, we could very well be looking at massive work outsourced do to the lack of representation under Amfa!
Thats a lie.

Arbitrators decisions in effect become part of the contract and they remain in place until new language is negotiated.