TWU says the Teamsters are Telling Lies

[TWU informer]

Not sure why the TWU waited until after Ratification Vote (wink, wink) to address this, but at least they finally are on point.

FACTS ON REPRESENTATION
Posted By Al Ball On August 14, 2012 @ 7:30 pm In Education,TWU |


The question has been raised of whether, under the RLA, a union which succeeds in decertifying and replacing the union which has previously represented a class or craft, may, by serving Section 6 notices on the employer/carrier, obligate that employer/carrier, regardless of how much time remains during which the existing CBA is defined by its own terms as unamendable, to negotiate terms and conditions of employment with the new union, which differ from these set forth in the CBA.

In other words: if a new union replaces TWU as representative of a class or craft at AA, does that union have the legal right to insist that AA negotiate with it to amend the ratified 6 year CBA between AA and TWU?

The answer to this question, which has been accepted without question for many years, is a simple No.
The National Mediation Board made its policy on the issue clear as early as 1934, its first year of operations:

“When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one set of representatives and the 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.” First Annual Report of the National Mediation Board (1935) pp. 23-24, cited with approval by the court in AFA v. USAir 24 F3d 1432, 143 (DC Cir., 1994). In 1994, the AFA v. USAir court further characterized as still “well established” the principle that “a mere change of representatives does not alter otherwise applicable contractual agreement,” Id. And the ABA/BNA Treatise “The Railway Labor Act” (3d edition, 2012), generally considered an authority in the field, stated, unequivocally, this year: “If a new representative is selected to replace an incumbent, an existing collective bargaining agreement with the carrier remains in effect in accordance with its duration clause, and the new representative becomes responsible for administering that contract,”.pp. 13-14

There is no reported decision or otherwise authoritative opinion that supports the position that a “mere” change of representative–such as would take place at AA should the IBT or AMFA or any other union replace TWU as the bargaining representative of a class or craft as a result of an NMB election can alter the provisions of a CBA already in effect, including its duration provision. The situation where the change of representative takes place in the context of, and as a result of a merger situation, involves far more complicated factors (including the disappearance of both originally contracting
parties, and the disappearance of the original carrier class or craft into the class or craft at the new “single carrier&rdquo than does a “mere” change of representative. To the extent that anyone—like IBT, in literature now being distributed–relies on the law in a merger situation to apply to a “mere” change of representative, its reliance is entirely misplaced, and leads to wrong conclusions.

The analysis and conclusion applicable to a “mere” change in representative continue to be exactly as stated by the NMB in its First Annual Report, and, most recently, by the 2012 Railway Labor Act Treatise: the existing CBA, including its duration provision, remains in effect to be administered by the new representative. To put it simply, a union which decertifies an incumbent union has no greater bargaining rights under the RLA than the union it replaces.


Pass it on...
http://twu514.org/blog/2012/08/14/facts-on-representation/print/

 

[Buster CRC]

Yep I heard several believe that crap. They voted yes thinking they wouldn't get the term sheet...then vote in teamsters and get a new contract.

Thanks Teamsters you helped out the TWU again.

 

[DNTULSA]

Yep I heard several believe that crap. They voted yes thinking they wouldn't get the term sheet...then vote in teamsters and get a new contract.

Thanks Teamsters you helped out the TWU again.

The teamsters are lying?

Whodda thunkit ???

 

[dfw gen]

LMFAO!!!!!!! this is like "the amts in tulsa can make things better" thread

 

[Chuck Schalk]

Great, just what we need more people lying to us!

this was a big lie and affected the voting of some members which affected me.

This is what we don't need, The teamsters are not the solution to our problems!

there is no reason to sign a teamster card

no good relationship starts off with being lied to

 

[DNTULSA]

Great, just what we need more people lying to us!

this was a big lie and affected the voting of some members which affected me.

This is what we don't need, The teamsters are not the solution to our problems!

there is no reason to sign a teamster card

no good relationship starts off with being lied to

Do you think that the teamsters are looking for a one night stand?

One night stands usually start with a lot of lying !!

 

[swamt]

Wow. You would think the TWU just said, "if we get replaced with another union, they want it to be AMFA" By calling out the teamsters lies and mis-leading liturature... Gotta love this crap. TWU very politely slamming the ibt/teamsters, therfore moving several supporters over to the AMFA side. Keep up the good work.

 

[scorpion 2]

Great, just what we need more people lying to us!

this was a big lie and affected the voting of some members which affected me.

This is what we don't need, The teamsters are not the solution to our problems!

there is no reason to sign a teamster card

no good relationship starts off with being lied to

The last nite of the vote I had a mechanic in Tulsa mention that he was told by ibt supporters that we could renegotiate if the ibt became our new bargaining agent. I tried to tell him that it was total BS but I dont know how much ibt koolaid he had drank. It may have been a waste of time and air. The letter posted by anomaly covers a merger along with 2 different unions representing one work group so it has no application in our situation. Like the story goes the ibt suck at representation but are world class at organizing. Tell em what they want a here brother cause we want their dues!

 

[Anomaly]

Sometimes legal positions are decided by opposing opinions. TWU and amfa hold one similar position and coincidentally offer no hope. The IBT holds another. That amfa is so eager to agree with the TWU is more proof that the association will only cause you to loose ground.

From IBT Legal
This letter is in response to your request for our legal opinion concerning the right of a newly-certified representative under the Railway Labor Act (“RLA&rdquo to bargain over the rates of pay, rules and working conditions of employees already covered by an existing collective bargaining agreement negotiated by their prior representative. The law on this issue is clear. A newly-certified representative can serve a Section 6 opener and the Carrier is obligated to negotiate over the terms of a new agreement. The starting point for such negotiations is the existing the rates of pay, rules and working conditions of employees established by their existing agreement. Further, a carrier may not refuse to negotiate with a newly-certified representative on the basis that the employees it represents are already covered by a collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated by a previous representative regardless of when the existing agreement becomes amendable.

The duty of a carrier to treat – i.e., to negotiate – with the certified representative of its employees over rates of pay, rules, and working conditions arises when the National Mediation Board (“NMB&rdquo certifies a representative for its employees pursuant to Section 2, Ninth of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth. Section 2, Ninth provides, in relevant part, that “pon receipt of such certification the carrier shall treat with the representative so certified as the representative of the craft or class.” Id. That duty to treat with the certified representative is not nullified simply because the employees are already covered by an existing agreement that has not otherwise become amendable.

In Ass’n of Flight Attendants (AFA) v. USAir, Inc., 24 F.3d 1432 (D.C. Cir. 1995), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit described a carrier’s duty to bargain after a change in representative. It did so in addressing AFA’s effort to apply its collective bargaining agreement with USAir to the much smaller flight attendant work group employed by Trump Shuttle and previously represented by the Transportation Workers Union (“TWU&rdquo following USAir’s assumption of managerial control of the Shuttle. The Court of Appeals held that the status quo applicable to the Shuttle employees (i.e., their existing rates of pay, rules and working conditions) was set by their existing collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the TWU and that the status quo prevailed until modified by an agreement between AFA and the carrier. Id. at 1439-40.

The status quo is significant for two important reasons. It contains the starting point for the parties’ negotiations and the parties are forbidden from unilaterally altering the status quo except in the manner prescribed in Section 6 of the RLA. 45 U.S.C. §§ 152, Seventh; Id. at 1440. Indeed, as noted by the Court of Appeals in AFA, 24 F.3d at 1438, this has been the policy of the NMB since its inception in 1934:

When there is an agreement in effect between a carrier and its employees signed by one


set of representatives and the 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 agreements made in behalf of the employees by their previous representatives.

FIRST ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD 23-24 (1935). Moreover, the NMB has explained that “the purpose of such policy is to emphasize a principle of the Railway Labor Act that agreements are between the employees and the carrier and that the change of an employee representative does not automatically change the contents of an agreement.” FORTY-SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD 39 (1976).

But, this does not mean that the newly-certified representative is prevented form pursuing new terms of employment or that it is locked into the status quo for any prescribed period of time. AFA, 24 F.3d at 1440. As the Court of Appeals explained, a carrier “cannot refuse to bargain over new terms based on a claim that bargaining has been settled under the pre-existing contract.” Id. “Instead, we hold that a newly certified union in situation such as this one has full bargaining rights with respect to covered employees without regard to whether the employees previously have been covered by a collective bargaining agreement.” Id.; accord, Bensel v. Allied Pilots Ass’n 387 F.3d 298, 316-17 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing AFA, 24 F.3d 1432).

The decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was bolstered by its rejection of the notion that USAir or AFA were bund by the collective bargaining agreement negotiated by the TWU for the flight attendants employed by the Trump Shuttle. The Court rejected that notion out of hand, reasoning, “it is also clear that neither USAir nor AFA is contractually bound by the Eastern-TWU agreement, for these parties have not assented to any of the terms of that agreement.” Id. “The application of one union’s collective bargaining agreement to another union’s members would create a situation where those members would have, in effect, two representatives. But, one could no more have two exclusive representatives than, to use the old baseball expression, ‘two men on second base.’” AFA v. United Airlines, 71 F.3d 915, 918 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

Therefore, while a successor representative inherits the contract agreed to by its predecessor as the status quo, the carrier is obliged to agree to commence negotiations over intended changes in the agreement within thirty days of receiving notice of such changes pursuant to Section 6 of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 156, even though a later amendable date appears in the existing agreement.

Very truly yours,​

Joshua D. McInerney

 

[DNTULSA]

Hey anomaly,

That's a pretty long lie!

 

[odie01]

I like this part

F.3d 298, 316-17 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing AFA, 24 F.3d 1432).

Thanks Analinmeagain

 

[riceweevil]

Wow. You would think the TWU just said, "if we get replaced with another union, they want it to be AMFA" By calling out the teamsters lies and mis-leading liturature... Gotta love this crap. TWU very politely slamming the ibt/teamsters, therfore moving several supporters over to the AMFA side. Keep up the good work.

Yeah, Looks like the TWU just shot the amfa accusations in the butt that the IBT was in collusion with the TWU to quell the amfa drive.

 

[TWU informer]

Yeah, Looks like the TWU just shot the amfa accusations in the butt that the IBT was in collusion with the TWU to quell the amfa drive.

Or Little was threatened with legal action, and like a good fear monger he put out a letter to calm his and your fear?

 

[DNTULSA]

Yeah, Looks like the TWU just shot the amfa accusations in the butt that the IBT was in collusion with the TWU to quell the amfa drive.

The twu and the teamsters both lie constantly.

 

[Anomaly]

Yeah, Looks like the TWU just shot the amfa accusations in the butt that the IBT was in collusion with the TWU to quell the amfa drive.

I am sure these guys will come up with another morbid angle. My favorite of all, is when they run out of arguments, they tearfully cry.... you lie...... whaaaaaa.