Tim,
I am not so sure that is true... a representational dispute would need to be settled before seniority integration could be decided if the minority party is more than 35%, but less than 50% of the total workforce? Although I could see the difficulty of resolving seniority integration before deciding upon one union, maybe it would be the duty of the two different unions to find an agreeable compromise or require it to be sent to arbitration within 20 days as required within the of MBA? I would like to see the citation you are using which requires an election for one representation before the resolution of the seniority matter.
Also it should be clear that MBA only enacted Sections 3 and 13 as they related to the otherwise obsolete Allegheny-Mohawk order, which state as follows:
Section 3. Insofar as the merger affects the seniority rights of the carriers employees, provisions shall be made for the integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner, including, where applicable, agreement through collective bargaining between the carriers and the representatives of the employees affected. In the event of failure to agree, the dispute may be submitted by either party for adjustment in accordance with section 13.
Section 13. (a) In the event that any dispute or controversy (except as to matters arising under section 9) arises with respect to the protections provided herein which cannot be settle by the parties within 20 days after the controversy arises, it may be referred by any party to an arbitrator selected from a panel of seven names furnished by the National Mediation Board for consideration and determination. The parties shall select the arbitrator from such panel by alternatively striking names until only one remains, and he shall serve as arbitrator. Expedited hearings and decisions will be expected, and a decision shall be rendered within 90 days after the controversy arises, unless an extension of time it is mutually agreeable to all parties. The salary and expenses of the arbitrator shall be borne equally by the carrier and (i) the organization or organizations representing employee or employees or (ii) if unrepresented, the employee or employees or group or groups of employees. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties.
(b.) The above condition shall not apply if the parties by mutual agreement determine that an alternative method for dispute settlement or an alternative procedure for selection of an arbitrator is appropriate in their particular dispute. No party shall be excused from complying with the above condition by reason of having suggested an alternative method or procedure unless and until that alternative method or procedure shall have been agreed to by all parties.
(It should be noted that that aforementioned Section 9 relates to reimbursement of housing, rental home expense, etc. and not only no longer valid, but immaterial to to the discussion at hand.)
No where Sections 3 or 13 does it state a required election, and you seem to be the only one on the board who insist that MBA does not apply, or for that matter within the IAM leadership. Furthermore, there appears to be no dispute in the example you provided amongst the IAM, IBT or the combined United/Continental management which haved accepted MBA as the underlying framework for seniority integration:
" Labor Protection Provisions and Interim Agreements
According to (Senior Vice President-Labor Relations, P. Douglas) McKeen, all of the affected employees are entitled under the McCaskill-Bond legislation to the benefit of Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions formerly issued by the Civil Aeronautics Board. McKeen further states that most of the existing CBAs include a contractual obligation to the same effect."
http://www.nmb.gov/representation/deter2011/38n041.pdf
I think you are making some assumptions, and indirectly
de facto implications of complete ineptitude by the IAM leadership if you are, in fact, correct about how MBA does not apply, as you have warned them under the condition for which it would not apply. As much as I have disregard and distrust the present IAM leadership, I would find it difficult to believe they would not investigate your understanding of MBA, especially given importance of possible integration.
So Conveys Jester.
Item 1: Your suggestion of the 20 days is unfounded legally, plus I think you must have misread the MBA since the time frame is 6 months if there is no superseding trigger. It would make no sense, legally, to do so when representational disputes come almost immediately after a single carrier ruling. A current model of the process is the Districts current UA PCE campaign. I would expect a single carrier ruling before Christmas, then shortly thereafter, usually two weeks, a representational dispute ruling.
McKeen is right in that all of the affected employees are under the MBA. It's a federal law so it is certainly recognized. However, the law has superseding exception clauses that render it void. Therefore, we can say with 'certainty' that it simply has not and will not be applied to the cases I mentioned, nor will it apply to the other presumed cases I mentioned. Let me first start by listing the actual law....with the exception I have referenced:
McCaskill Amendent
CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
HR 2764
SEC. 117. LABOR INTEGRATION.
(a) LABOR INTEGRATION.—With respect to any covered transaction involving two or more covered air
carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act
(45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil
Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to
the integration of covered employees of the covered air carriers; except that—
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each
of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent’s internal policies regarding
integration, if any, will not be affected by
and will supersede the requirements of this
section.
That's the given.
While it is true that the MBA will affect employees, we see that part of that affect, in application, is if the combined unit has the same bargaining agent, there is no application of the MBA and that the unions internal union policy becomes the application through superseding. Yes?
Further, the process of determining seniority comes immediately after single carrier, unless there is a representational dispute. If there is a representational dispute, then there will only be one union. Seniority questions are never answered before representational elections and single carrier.
My interpretation of the law is not founded on my opinion but founded on the application of the law in the airline cases since the law.
1. MBA application under the CO/UA merger is a good model to use for models that have representational disputes. The internal policy of the AFA will determine the stews. The internal policy of the IAM will determine the ramp. ALPA's internal policy will determine the Pilots. And management will determine the non union.
2. OTOH, when there is
no representational dispute, there is no superseding of internal union policies, unless both employee groups have the same union. Let's look more closely at the Airtran/Southwest model.
A. Customer service at Airtran & Southwest are both IAM.
Regardless of party, the IAM's policy will still supersede the MBA.
B. WN Ramp TWU, Airtran ramp IAM.
MBA applies insomuch as there is no contract that the MBA violates [that's another exception that I didn't quote in the above citation]. Thus, the TWU at WN has a clause in its contract that demands arbitration after 6 months of initial negotiations with another union. The IAM and the TWU have been negotiating seniority for about 5 months now. Thus, the seniority process, as obligated by the TWU contract will be determined rather soon, MBA or not. So, either way, that seniority will go to arbitration if there is no agreement soon.
As with any law, there are some parties that try to circumvent it or break it, thus, some MBA applications have ended up in court. When Republic bought Midwest Express, it extinquished and abolished the flying certificate and the operating license of Midwest. Thus, I believe the IBT stapled the former midwest stews to the bottom if they were rehired and initially argued that Midwest doesn't even exist and that the AFA has no right to represent them. I'm not too familiar with the recent outcome of that case but if you have time to read it, try googling it and I'd be interested to know what happened.
regards,
Tim Nelson
