Those are questions put forward to the NMB and they will decide. The Association of course wants the NMB to limit you to choosing between accepting their BS deal or having No Union. They know its a crappy deal for us.
The appeal sent by local 591 cites the NMB's own guidelines.
This is how I read the NMb guideleines. Typically the NMB assumes that in a single carrier status filing if you currently have 10,000 members that all 10,000 can be accepted as that unions "showing of interest to stay in that union", if you have 5000 members then you would need to get 2501 members from the Union that has 10,000 members (50%+1 of the combined membership) to set off a runoff vote between the two, once the vote is scheduled intervenor unions would also be allowed to get on the Ballot, write ins would be permitted and the No-Union option would also be put on the ballot.
To the NMB the first question is broken down into "Union or No union" . The next question if the choice is for Union is which one? Only cast votes are counted. In order to become "no union", regardless of the number of options on the ballot 50% +1 of the votes must be for no union. So lets say only 1000 of the 15000 people eliible to vote- voted, 499 voted for "no Union", 200, voted for TWU, 150 voted for Association, and 151 wrote in IAM, the first question has been answered, the members by majority votes cast, 499 to 501 want a union, now comes the next question. Whom? The NMB takes the two top vote getters and has a run off, so in this example it would be the TWU(200) and the IAM (151) on the runoff ballot.
There will be, and already has been some disinformation put out as far as the rules, in the past votes not cast were counted as NO Union" votes, that was changed a few years back after intense lobbying by the Unions which was just as intensely challenged by the Airlines and Railroads, I went to the hearing in DC, and was centered around the Delta FA organizing efforts. Despite the changes being put in place the drive still failed, even under the new rules.
If you recall back when we merged with TWA there was no runoff with the IAM, and the company and the Unions agreed that both contract group in the combined carrier would fall under the AA deal. The TWU got thousands of new members, the company got a single agreement in place, the TWA members got big pay increases and the IAM got back monies for the IAMPF and lease payments for an engine TWA had leased from the IAM. I guess this time the IAM was not really getting anything by backing out gracefully and timid Jim Little, in his quest to destroy the TWU signed this agreement for the Association despite the TWUs much larger membership.
What the TWU and IAM are asking now is that without any prior input from the members that the NMB broaden the assumption of a showing of interest from incumbent members having an interest in staying in their union to the assumption that the combined group has an interest in doing whatever the Presidents of the two unions want to do, or have no union (or contract) at all. In light of the fact that one of those Presidents, the one from the much larger group, has been removed that puts serious doubt into the credibility of any such assumption. While it is established that the NMB accepts current membership numbers as a showing of interest in maintaining the status quo, they have never just accepted those numbers as a showing of interest for change without any measure to verify that the members truly do support that. In other cases where Associations were formed the unions conducted internal union votes, the TWU and IAM did not.
Local 591 takes the position that we should not be denied a real choice consistent with the practice and standards that have been applied in the past. Jim Little and Buffenbarger do not and should not have the right to force us to choose between this Association or having No Union or dictate what choices will be placed on the ballot. We feel that if there is a ballot, especially one without a prior referendum of the membership internally, that consistent with the guidelines used in the past the TWU must to be a choice on the ballot, having met the showing of interest criteria. The IAM has not met the criteria, therefore they would not be on the Ballot but they could accepted as a write in as well as any other choice the members elect to write in.
[/quote
This is the best explanation I have found to date to what the NMB is dealing with, given that, it sure looks like:
The TWU is the only Union in play here that has the required "showing of interest" to be determined as the representative body.
The Association, the IAM, and AMFA or anyone else , would have to turn in cards within the 30 day window, or else it goes to TWU by default if past history and the current rules are the guide.
TWU was likely well aware of the footing they possessed and just went along with the "association" to appease the IAM reps.
They can submit anything they want to the NMB saying "we both agree and prefer this lovely new deal" , but without a required "showing of interest", it's just a couple guys getting together saying , " yeah , this looks cool to us, both of us" .
The NMB should then just say, ok,
TWU has a showing of interest, clearly over 50% of the membership in a contract.
IAM?, nope, not over 50%.
Association?, nope, just a handful of dudes that says it's cool.
So, no cards, no election.
