SEHAM, SEHAM, MELTZ & PETERSEN, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
445 HAMILTON AVENUE, SUITE 1204
WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 10601
TEL: (914) 997-1346
FAX: (914) 997-7125
[email protected]
www.ssmplaw.com
March 25, 2013
Mr. Don Rodgers
AMFA-AA Organizing Committee
Re: Threats of Economic Retaliation
Dear Mr. Rodgers:
You have brought to our attention that the TWU has engaged in intimations of economic retaliation by American Airlines and/or the TWU in response to an effort by the Mechanics and Related Employees to change their representation. These threats reportedly related to both contractual wage increases and the distribution of the 4.8% equity stake.
We consider these threats to be unlawful and that, furthermore, any effort to fulfill such threats would subject American and/or the TWU to enormous potential liability.
Contractual Wage Increases
The Railway Labor Act prohibits any effort by a carrier to "influence or coerce employees in an effort to induce them to join or remain or not to join or remain members of any labor organization." 45 U.S.C. 152, Fourth. Significantly, the federal judiciary has held that a change in union representatives does not alter the employees' existing contractual rights.
Nevertheless, in a Q&A published March 14, 2013, the TWU shamelessly asserts that "the New American will have a strong argument" that negotiated wage increases would not be payable to those employees who decided to change unions.
We say "shamelessly," not just because the TWU is wrong, but because, when the IBT made an analogous argument - i.e., that the IBT would have the automatic right to reopen an existing TWU-negotiated CBA - the TWU effectively blasted the IBT propaganda as a lie. The TWU correctly informed its members that, under federal law, a successor union steps into the contractual shoes of its predecessor.
So who is lying now? Federal courts and the National Mediation Board provide the answer.
The federal courts have consistently held that a change in union representation does not change existing contractual right and obligations. See Association of Flight Attendants v. USAir, Inc., 807 F. Supp. 827 (D.D.C. 1992), aff'd, 146 L.R.R.M. 2534 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Air Transp. Employees v. Western Airlines, 105 L.R.R.M. 3004, 3008 (C.D. Cal 1980); International Ass'n of Machinists v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 843 F.2d 1119, 1123 n.5 (8th Cir. 1988), vacated as moot, 854 F.2d 1088 (8th Cir. 1988); Order of Ry. Conducts & Brakemen v. Switchmen's Union of North America, 269 F.2d 726, 730 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 899 (1959).
The National Mediation Board has also repeatedly recognized the principle of contractual continuity. In 1935, the Board wrote:
When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does not alter or cancel any existing agreement made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives. The only effect of a certification by the Board is that the employees have chosen other agents to represent them in dealing with the management under the existing agreement.
First Annual Report of the National Mediation Board at 23-24 (1935) (emphasis supplied). In 1976, the Board further explained:
The purpose of such a policy is to emphasize a principle of the Railway Labor Act that
agreements are between the employees and the carrier....
Forty-Second Annual Report of the National Mediation Board at 39 (1976) (emphasis supplied).
The Board's position was reaffirmed on June 7, 1994 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which cited the "well-established principle that a mere change of representatives does not alter otherwise applicable contractual agreements." Association of Flight Attendants, 24 F.3d at 1438.
Equity Stake
Interestingly enough, the TWU refrains from making a similar economic threat regarding the distribution of the 4.8% equity stake. With respect to these monies, the TWU's March 14 Q&A indicates that, even with a change of union representation: "Mechanics and Related, as a class or craft, will receive an appropriate share of this equity." Nevertheless, we understand that TWU representatives have been making oral threats that the TWU might withhold the Mechanics' share of equity stake in retaliation for their support of alternative union representation.
The TWU's written commitment to provide Mechanics and Related Employees an "appropriate share" of the equity undoubtedly reflects its awareness that the Railway Labor Act prohibits a labor union from stripping employees of contractual benefits based on their preference for alternative union representation. See, Ramey v. International Association of Machinists, 378 F.2d 269 (2nd Cir. 2004) (IAM liable for damages and attorneys fees where it seniority integration decisions regarding USAir Shuttle Mechanics were based on its animus toward these mechanics based on their advocacy for AMFA); Teamsters Local Union No. 42 v. NLRB, 825 F.2d 608, 612 (1st Cir. 1987) ("When a union attempts to prefer [on group of] workers based solely on [their loyalty to their guild]," it has breached its duty of fair representation).
We do not believe that the oral threats that have been made, in conflict with the TWU's written commitment, will be fulfilled. Moreover, we can assure you that any effort to cheat the AA Mechanics and Related Employees of their contractual rights will meet with an aggressive litigation response.
Sincerely,
Lee Seham
Pretty damn sad when unions have to OUTRIGHT lie and practically blackmail their members to stick with them. As stated above the TWU "corrects" the teamsters about their lies to re-open the contract, and turns right around and claims that they and the company can withhold written contract rewards. Not gonna happen guys, don't fall for the TWU/company lies. They will say and do anything to try and keep the TWU on property. Great letter, gotta love the last paragraph. Spread this letter thru-out the membership. Don't let the TWU and company install scare tactics to help deflect AMFA from getting in. Very pathetic tactics indeed...
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
445 HAMILTON AVENUE, SUITE 1204
WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK 10601
TEL: (914) 997-1346
FAX: (914) 997-7125
[email protected]
www.ssmplaw.com
March 25, 2013
Mr. Don Rodgers
AMFA-AA Organizing Committee
Re: Threats of Economic Retaliation
Dear Mr. Rodgers:
You have brought to our attention that the TWU has engaged in intimations of economic retaliation by American Airlines and/or the TWU in response to an effort by the Mechanics and Related Employees to change their representation. These threats reportedly related to both contractual wage increases and the distribution of the 4.8% equity stake.
We consider these threats to be unlawful and that, furthermore, any effort to fulfill such threats would subject American and/or the TWU to enormous potential liability.
Contractual Wage Increases
The Railway Labor Act prohibits any effort by a carrier to "influence or coerce employees in an effort to induce them to join or remain or not to join or remain members of any labor organization." 45 U.S.C. 152, Fourth. Significantly, the federal judiciary has held that a change in union representatives does not alter the employees' existing contractual rights.
Nevertheless, in a Q&A published March 14, 2013, the TWU shamelessly asserts that "the New American will have a strong argument" that negotiated wage increases would not be payable to those employees who decided to change unions.
We say "shamelessly," not just because the TWU is wrong, but because, when the IBT made an analogous argument - i.e., that the IBT would have the automatic right to reopen an existing TWU-negotiated CBA - the TWU effectively blasted the IBT propaganda as a lie. The TWU correctly informed its members that, under federal law, a successor union steps into the contractual shoes of its predecessor.
So who is lying now? Federal courts and the National Mediation Board provide the answer.
The federal courts have consistently held that a change in union representation does not change existing contractual right and obligations. See Association of Flight Attendants v. USAir, Inc., 807 F. Supp. 827 (D.D.C. 1992), aff'd, 146 L.R.R.M. 2534 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Air Transp. Employees v. Western Airlines, 105 L.R.R.M. 3004, 3008 (C.D. Cal 1980); International Ass'n of Machinists v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 843 F.2d 1119, 1123 n.5 (8th Cir. 1988), vacated as moot, 854 F.2d 1088 (8th Cir. 1988); Order of Ry. Conducts & Brakemen v. Switchmen's Union of North America, 269 F.2d 726, 730 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 899 (1959).
The National Mediation Board has also repeatedly recognized the principle of contractual continuity. In 1935, the Board wrote:
When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and employees choose new representatives who are certified by the Board, the Board has taken the position that a change in representation does not alter or cancel any existing agreement made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives. The only effect of a certification by the Board is that the employees have chosen other agents to represent them in dealing with the management under the existing agreement.
First Annual Report of the National Mediation Board at 23-24 (1935) (emphasis supplied). In 1976, the Board further explained:
The purpose of such a policy is to emphasize a principle of the Railway Labor Act that
agreements are between the employees and the carrier....
Forty-Second Annual Report of the National Mediation Board at 39 (1976) (emphasis supplied).
The Board's position was reaffirmed on June 7, 1994 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which cited the "well-established principle that a mere change of representatives does not alter otherwise applicable contractual agreements." Association of Flight Attendants, 24 F.3d at 1438.
Equity Stake
Interestingly enough, the TWU refrains from making a similar economic threat regarding the distribution of the 4.8% equity stake. With respect to these monies, the TWU's March 14 Q&A indicates that, even with a change of union representation: "Mechanics and Related, as a class or craft, will receive an appropriate share of this equity." Nevertheless, we understand that TWU representatives have been making oral threats that the TWU might withhold the Mechanics' share of equity stake in retaliation for their support of alternative union representation.
The TWU's written commitment to provide Mechanics and Related Employees an "appropriate share" of the equity undoubtedly reflects its awareness that the Railway Labor Act prohibits a labor union from stripping employees of contractual benefits based on their preference for alternative union representation. See, Ramey v. International Association of Machinists, 378 F.2d 269 (2nd Cir. 2004) (IAM liable for damages and attorneys fees where it seniority integration decisions regarding USAir Shuttle Mechanics were based on its animus toward these mechanics based on their advocacy for AMFA); Teamsters Local Union No. 42 v. NLRB, 825 F.2d 608, 612 (1st Cir. 1987) ("When a union attempts to prefer [on group of] workers based solely on [their loyalty to their guild]," it has breached its duty of fair representation).
We do not believe that the oral threats that have been made, in conflict with the TWU's written commitment, will be fulfilled. Moreover, we can assure you that any effort to cheat the AA Mechanics and Related Employees of their contractual rights will meet with an aggressive litigation response.
Sincerely,
Lee Seham
Pretty damn sad when unions have to OUTRIGHT lie and practically blackmail their members to stick with them. As stated above the TWU "corrects" the teamsters about their lies to re-open the contract, and turns right around and claims that they and the company can withhold written contract rewards. Not gonna happen guys, don't fall for the TWU/company lies. They will say and do anything to try and keep the TWU on property. Great letter, gotta love the last paragraph. Spread this letter thru-out the membership. Don't let the TWU and company install scare tactics to help deflect AMFA from getting in. Very pathetic tactics indeed...
