- Nov 11, 2005
- 8
- 0
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected], [email protected]
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:17:18 -0700
>I'm the Director of Labor Relations for the ground groups which includes
>Fleet Service so your email was
> forwarded to me to respond to your concerns expressed in your email.
>
>At this point in time there is simply no answer to the question of which
>cities may be outsourced within fleet service at the merged integrated
>carrier. It is the Company's view that the language contained in the scope
>provisions of the two labor agreements requires that the IAM contract is
>the successor labor agreement in the merger (regardless of which union is
>the final representative).
>
> When we get to the final negotiations related to the final single
>agreement for the merged carrier, both the company and the final union
>representative may make other proposals, subject to mutual agreement.
>
>We cannot get to those final negotiations for the single agreement until
>after we know which union is the fleet service representative at the merged
>carrier. And, we will not know the answer to that question until the
>National Mediation Board ( "Board") either decides that the union
>representative of the smaller group does not have a "show of interest" from
>at least 35% of the combined group, in which case the Board normally
>extends the certification of the larger union without a representation
>election, or in the alternative, determines the union representative from
>the smaller group does have the required 35% interest, in which case the
>final representative will be determined through a Board conducted
>representation election. The unions filed the "show of interest" on Feb.
>13, 2006 and after a verification/challenge period will issue a
>determination. Once we have a final union representative, we will meet
>with that union for transition negotiations.
>
>Ron
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected], [email protected]
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:17:18 -0700
>I'm the Director of Labor Relations for the ground groups which includes
>Fleet Service so your email was
> forwarded to me to respond to your concerns expressed in your email.
>
>At this point in time there is simply no answer to the question of which
>cities may be outsourced within fleet service at the merged integrated
>carrier. It is the Company's view that the language contained in the scope
>provisions of the two labor agreements requires that the IAM contract is
>the successor labor agreement in the merger (regardless of which union is
>the final representative).
>
> When we get to the final negotiations related to the final single
>agreement for the merged carrier, both the company and the final union
>representative may make other proposals, subject to mutual agreement.
>
>We cannot get to those final negotiations for the single agreement until
>after we know which union is the fleet service representative at the merged
>carrier. And, we will not know the answer to that question until the
>National Mediation Board ( "Board") either decides that the union
>representative of the smaller group does not have a "show of interest" from
>at least 35% of the combined group, in which case the Board normally
>extends the certification of the larger union without a representation
>election, or in the alternative, determines the union representative from
>the smaller group does have the required 35% interest, in which case the
>final representative will be determined through a Board conducted
>representation election. The unions filed the "show of interest" on Feb.
>13, 2006 and after a verification/challenge period will issue a
>determination. Once we have a final union representative, we will meet
>with that union for transition negotiations.
>
>Ron
:wacko: :down:
