Delta backs in-house seniority integration proposal in likely effort to avoid a union election
February 13th, 2009
An in-house committee of flight attendants (backed by Delta Airlines) has made a seniority integration proposal to the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA-CWA), the union representative of the Northwest flight attendants. The proposal seeks a seniority integration between the two flight attendant groups based on an employee’s date of hire by their respective pre-merger companies. This “date of hire†integration method is also required by the AFA’s constitution.
Interestingly, having a seniority integration based on date of hire was an issue in the AFA’s recent organizing drive at Delta prior the merger of Delta and Northwest. Back then, (based on some comments I received from Delta FAs) Delta managers were apparently raising the specter of a date of hire integration to scare their flight attendants into not supporting AFA. The Northwest flight attendants were presented as generally more senior than Delta flight attendants. (I don’t know if that’s accurate or not.) So Delta managers were warning Delta flight attendants that if they voted for AFA, the AFA constitution would require a date of hire integration that would allegedly disfavor the Delta FAs.
Hmm, so what’s changed in less than a year that, as Delta now puts it “we support their seniority date-based position as a fair and equitable integration method.†(See here) What’s changed is that Delta has now finalized its merger with Northwest. Last month, it tried to manipulate a filing with the National Mediation Board by the union for its pilots, ALPA (which sought and obtained the NMB’s recognition of ALPA as representative for the combined Delta pilot group), into cutting off the separate representation of Northwest flight attendants and ground service employees (who are represented by the AFA and IAM.) Of course, this stunt was wholly-unsupported by the NMB’s representation manual. And it was also directly contrary to case law on the subject of who can trigger a NMB union representation investigation of employee groups involved in a merger. The NMB rejected Delta’s attempt, but I suppose it never hurts to ask.
So after being rebuffed in its effort to short circuit the RLA processes for determining union representation for the Delta and NWA flight attendants, Delta is now hoping to fast track a combination and then run back to the NMB to cut off the Northwest flight attendants’ separate representational status before the AFA has time to organize the combined group. Delta figures if AFA is offered the integration method required by its Constitution, it will have to agree and then the continued separate status of the two flight attendant groups will end. That would let Delta argue (no doubt with the aid of its company-sponsored flight attendant committee) that the two groups are now combined and the NMB should issue a decision of that “single carrier†status. (â€Single carrier†is a term referring to the fact that two or more separate employee groups have now combined into one for purposes of union representation.) Such a decision by the NMB would then trigger a two-week requirement for the AFA to produce enough union cards to combine with its status as the Northwest flight attendant union to show support by at least 35% of the combined flight attendant group and trigger an election. Delta doubtless figures the AFA can’t do it.
I know, I know–how conspiratorial of me.
The AFA will understandably resist being railroaded (if you’ll forgive borrowing a term from the other industry under the RLA) into a quick election process. It also, no doubt, is seething over this stunt where a date of hire seniority integration that about nine months ago would be just awful for Delta FAs is now “fair and equitable.â€
Maybe Delta’s just getting on the “Change†train?
Flight attendants interested in obtaining the contractual rights and power that only come with union representation should recognize Delta’s tactic for what it is and remain patient while AFA works to preserve their ability to pursue representation under the RLA.
An interesting article...
February 13th, 2009
An in-house committee of flight attendants (backed by Delta Airlines) has made a seniority integration proposal to the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA-CWA), the union representative of the Northwest flight attendants. The proposal seeks a seniority integration between the two flight attendant groups based on an employee’s date of hire by their respective pre-merger companies. This “date of hire†integration method is also required by the AFA’s constitution.
Interestingly, having a seniority integration based on date of hire was an issue in the AFA’s recent organizing drive at Delta prior the merger of Delta and Northwest. Back then, (based on some comments I received from Delta FAs) Delta managers were apparently raising the specter of a date of hire integration to scare their flight attendants into not supporting AFA. The Northwest flight attendants were presented as generally more senior than Delta flight attendants. (I don’t know if that’s accurate or not.) So Delta managers were warning Delta flight attendants that if they voted for AFA, the AFA constitution would require a date of hire integration that would allegedly disfavor the Delta FAs.
Hmm, so what’s changed in less than a year that, as Delta now puts it “we support their seniority date-based position as a fair and equitable integration method.†(See here) What’s changed is that Delta has now finalized its merger with Northwest. Last month, it tried to manipulate a filing with the National Mediation Board by the union for its pilots, ALPA (which sought and obtained the NMB’s recognition of ALPA as representative for the combined Delta pilot group), into cutting off the separate representation of Northwest flight attendants and ground service employees (who are represented by the AFA and IAM.) Of course, this stunt was wholly-unsupported by the NMB’s representation manual. And it was also directly contrary to case law on the subject of who can trigger a NMB union representation investigation of employee groups involved in a merger. The NMB rejected Delta’s attempt, but I suppose it never hurts to ask.
So after being rebuffed in its effort to short circuit the RLA processes for determining union representation for the Delta and NWA flight attendants, Delta is now hoping to fast track a combination and then run back to the NMB to cut off the Northwest flight attendants’ separate representational status before the AFA has time to organize the combined group. Delta figures if AFA is offered the integration method required by its Constitution, it will have to agree and then the continued separate status of the two flight attendant groups will end. That would let Delta argue (no doubt with the aid of its company-sponsored flight attendant committee) that the two groups are now combined and the NMB should issue a decision of that “single carrier†status. (â€Single carrier†is a term referring to the fact that two or more separate employee groups have now combined into one for purposes of union representation.) Such a decision by the NMB would then trigger a two-week requirement for the AFA to produce enough union cards to combine with its status as the Northwest flight attendant union to show support by at least 35% of the combined flight attendant group and trigger an election. Delta doubtless figures the AFA can’t do it.
I know, I know–how conspiratorial of me.
The AFA will understandably resist being railroaded (if you’ll forgive borrowing a term from the other industry under the RLA) into a quick election process. It also, no doubt, is seething over this stunt where a date of hire seniority integration that about nine months ago would be just awful for Delta FAs is now “fair and equitable.â€
Maybe Delta’s just getting on the “Change†train?
Flight attendants interested in obtaining the contractual rights and power that only come with union representation should recognize Delta’s tactic for what it is and remain patient while AFA works to preserve their ability to pursue representation under the RLA.
An interesting article...
