Mr. Munn, Quote and Commentary on an article in the Pitt Post-Gazette,
"In addition, today the Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette said, "The airline also indicated it will ask that the union (IAM) be assessed $5.1 million a month for six months (this is $30.6 million) to reimburse US Airways for 'economic detriment of the bankruptcy.' If the two fail to agree on voluntary concessions, the airline wants the CWA assessed $2.4 million a month for six months (this is $14.4 million)."
In my opinion if the judge agrees and issues a court order supporting US Airways' claim, the union will be required to pay the assessment. However, during furloughs unions have declining budgets and do not have excess funds to pay court assessments. However, who is the union? The membership; therefore, if the court agrees in addition to deeper cuts the members could be required to pay the multi-million assessments and if a member refuses, they would be in contempt of a court order"
Although I've disagreed with some of your statements, I have still respected the fact that you advanced your opinion and labeled it as such. I think that you have gone way over the line on this one. The logic that underlies the assertion that Union Members, whose membership is compulsory under the closed shop provisions of their labor Contract with the Carrier by Air, are somehow culpable for asserting their LMRDA rights is highly suspect.
Do you or any of your sources have one Legal Precedent for supporting any type of fine against a Union whose membership refused to grant Concessions?
Do you or any of your sources have one Legal Precedent for the payment of fines against an Organization being subsequently levied against the members- WHEN THOSE MEMBERS WERE REQUIRED TO JOIN THE ORGANIZATION AS A TERM OF EMPLOYMENT?
Nowhere has it been asserted that the Union has engaged in an Unlawful Job Action or is in violation of any lawful Order issued by a Court of Jurisdiction in this matter.
There are numerous cases, which deal with the Duty of Fair Representation Doctrine. We can start with Vacca v. Sipes and continue to the Reno F/A Class Action Lawsuit v. APFA. In each of those cases, the Federal District Courts up to and including the United States Supreme Court have ruled that the Duty of a Union is to protect the Interests of the Membership; not the Company, not prospective members, not customers of the Company, not the Stockholders of the Company.
There is even a Law that was passed that helps to delineate the responsibility of a Union covered under the Railway Labor Act to its' members. The law is the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, LMRDA, of 1959. It covers the rights of Union Members.
Sec. 411. Bill of rights; constitution and bylaws of labor organizations
(a) (1) Equal rights
Every member of a labor organization shall have equal rights and privileges within such organization to nominate candidates, to vote in elections or referendums of the labor organization, to attend membership meetings, and to participate in the deliberations and voting upon the business of such meetings, subject to reasonable rules and regulations in such organization's constitution and bylaws.
(2) Freedom of speech and assembly
Every member of any labor organization shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization's established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings...
I've heard that there used to be an old negotiating tactic that went by an acronym: FUD. It stood for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. I think that is what we are seeing now.