Rusty said:
j7915, in part of your paragraph you believe it would be difficult to remove an officer by 25% recall vote, then in the same paragraph you say that only those that cross Delle and Kevin Mc would be easy to recall.
This sounds like typical management rhetoric to me. You have never stated what your job position is, that I have seen. Exactly what is your job description???
The courts have ruled that the twu international has supreme authority over our contract and we have no say what so ever. Do you think this is a better approach than membership rule and to have a direct say in the happenings/operations of our union? If so, is it because management knows that true union strength comes from the membership and not through industrial union dictators like Sonny Hall?
In a bulletin to UAL Technicians, dated April 13, National AMFA Director, O.V. Delle-Femine had this to say;
“In AMF A the officers work for the members. If the members are dissatisfied with any National or Local Officer, they have a recall process guaranteed in the Constitution. This provides the necessary checks and balances that guarantee the members final and lasting authority.â€
Lets look at how these checks and balances work when they are put into practice by the National Director.
When AMFA Airline Representative, Vic Remininski signed a “SECRET†letter of agreement infringing on their seniority and overtime rights, WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE MEMBERS. The membership got up a recall petition with 430 signatures, roughly 30% of the 1460 active members of Local 19.
AMFA Constitution, Article XIV, Section 2. provides recall procedures for Local Officers. You must have 25% of the members sign a petition. (In the IAM any one (1) member has the right to bring charges against any representative or member.)
The Local 19 President demanded that charges be attached to the petition, so charges were attached, even though AMFA Constitution, Article XIV, Section 2 does not require charges for a recall.
By demanding attached charges changed the Recall Trial was changed into a Membership Trial. AMFA Constitution, Article XIV, Section 4, provides for a membership trial whenever charges are preferred against a member.
On August 6 the Local 19 President procured an opinion from the National's legal service which stated that t the Local 19 By-Laws are in conflict with the AMFA Constitution and consequently void. Using this decision, without membership approval, the President usurped the rights of the members.
The Local 19 President selected and appointed a five member Trial Committee. The local bylaws, article IX section 3 called for a election of the trial committee. But, Lee Seham ruled them to be in violation of the Constitution.
On August 27 the Local 19 President procured from the National's legal service the opinion that the members were not entitled to vote on the recall if the trial committee found the Airline Representative not guilty.
At the Sept. 18 business meeting, the Treasurer's report disclosed that $1,500.00 had been paid to Lee Seham in defense of the Airline Representative being recalled.
A trial date of October 19 was set.
On October 17 the National Secretary issued a statement that the National Executive Committee agreed with the opinions of Lee Seham.
At the trial there was National intervention, on behalf of the Airline Representative, in the form of letters from the National Director and the NEC, and testimony from the Airline Representatives of Locals 2 and 5.
During the trial the Local 19 Airline Representative testified that the National Director supported his arguments, also that Lee Seham had rendered findings in his favor." Throughout the trial the Local 19 Airline Representative repeatedly contradicted him self, entering testimony that he had already testified against. The Trial Committee found the Airline Representative "Not Guilty on all charges."
AMFA Constitution, Article XIV, Section 10, says “After the report has been delivered as to guilt or innocence of the defendant the verdict shall be submitted without debate to a vote by secret ballot of the members in attendance.â€
However, because of the ruling by Lee Seham and the NEC NO VOTE was ever called and Vic was allowed to resume his duties. During the three month he continued to receive 125% of the wages of a technician, for doing nothing.
This is how, through adroit manipulation, "the administration" takes control of the union away from the members. This is how the right of recall was abolished. This is how the members' right to vote was abolished. In other representation election, they voted for the AMFA Constitution, NOT the then non-existent AMFA administration.
h34r:
