US Airways ALPA MEC Chairman's Message

[Bear96]

Please check out Russell v. NMB, 714 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1983), that decision deals with decertifying a union. As I read the case, after an election is held, if the challenger is elected, they can keep or negate any part of a current working agreement as they see fit. . . . But what is really important about that case law is the ability to pick and choose by the new entity.

Wow. How on Earth do you possibly read that from Russell? Could you give a pinpoint cite to a particular page? Seriously. I am curious how anyone can read Russell and come away with that impression.

Your reading is way, way off. Russell simply says that a work group can petition the NMB to "decertify" a union under the RLA, even though the RLA contains no specific provisions for decertification the way the NLRA does.

A new union has the right to pick and choose only those portions of the pre-existing CBA it wants to? WTF? Is that supposed to be a joke? Again, please provide the exact language you are referring to. (Or are you listening to the East MEC or one of its spinmeisters and haven't actually read the case yourself? I seem to remember a certain USA320pilot hinting at something like this a couple of months ago and being proven totally wrong.)

Maybe it's best you stick to piloting planes and leave others to interpreting case law.

Many of your other points I have addressed in previous posts in this thread.

Then new negotiations can take place for either a new contract or no contract.

So a newly-elected challenger union might choose to negotiate for NO contract? Am I understanding you? If so, what is the point of having a union at all? What am I missing in what you are trying to say?

The railway labor act only requires that someone must be elected to speak on behalf of the represented employees.

???

According to Russell (brought up by you), under the RLA employees can indeed opt for non-representation.

How they speak is of no consequence under the act. So which part do you think will go first?

???

'How they speak'??? Which part of what? Go where? What are you talking about?

Does it really make managements job easier? IMO I doubt it. In fact it's just the opposite. Now you would have 2 unions to deal with.

The company has no obligation to bargain with two unions.

Do yourself a favor. Google "exclusive representation". Poke around the results for a bit. Then get back to us.

Management's job will indeed be easier when the one union it has to deal with is hopelessly divided -- or if LCC's pilots go the Russell route, either by design or by stupidity, and end up with no union representation at all.

Now you would have 2 unions to deal with. Your section 6 and ours.

???

Who is "you" and "your"?

Which side would you buy first? One that has the potential to make a lot on money. Or one that just gets by?

What, is this a trick question? I would buy neither. I spent enough time in the industry to know to stay away from airlines as a financial (or employment) investment.

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Wow. How on Earth do you possibly read that from Russell? Could you give a pinpoint cite to a particular page? Seriously. I am curious how anyone can read Russell and come away with that impression.

Your reading is way, way off. Russell simply says that a work group can petition the NMB to "decertify" a union under the RLA, even though the RLA contains no specific provisions for decertification the way the NLRA does.

There's the point isn't it?


A new union has the right to pick and choose only those portions of the pre-existing CBA it wants to? WTF? Is that supposed to be a joke? Again, please provide the exact language you are referring to. (Or are you listening to the East MEC or one of its spinmeisters and haven't actually read the case yourself? I seem to remember a certain USA320pilot hinting at something like this a couple of months ago and being proven totally wrong.)

I just copied this from the "National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation". "The NMB would then hold an election between the union and the independent representative. If the independent representative wins the election, he or she can disclaim the contract entirely or just the forced unionism clause". (PICK and CHOOSE?? MAYBE?) "Detailed information about the NMB’s representation procedures can be found on its web site. The case that established the right of railway and airline employees to opt for non-representation is Russell v. NMB, 714 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1983)," Maybe you're smarter than their attorneys, I don't know.

Maybe it's best you stick to piloting planes and leave others to interpreting case law.

You might be right about that. However, there is precedence in how to replace ALPA.

Many of your other points I have addressed in previous posts in this thread.
So a newly-elected challenger union might choose to negotiate for NO contract? Am I understanding you? If so, what is the point of having a union at all? What am I missing in what you are trying to say?
???

I just pointed out the option. Of course we need a contract. Just not one represented by ALPA.

According to Russell (brought up by you), under the RLA employees can indeed opt for non-representation.
???

Not for non representation. Under the RLA there has to be someone. What they decide to do is up to them.

'How they speak'??? Which part of what? Go where? What are you talking about?
The company has no obligation to bargain with two unions.

Well there's the point also. Only if it wants to merge the 2 groups.

Do yourself a favor. Google "exclusive representation". Poke around the results for a bit. Then get back to us.

I did. After weighing through a ton of garbage sites, I came to the conclusion on page 4 of the results that it wasn't worth my time. Except the first site from New mexico was interesting. However, it had no bearing on the RLA.

Management's job will indeed be easier when the one union it has to deal with is hopelessly divided -- or if LCC's pilots go the Russell route, either by design or by stupidity, and end up with no union representation at all.
???

Maybe the east side, then we get to rehash this again.

Who is "you" and "your"?
What, is this a trick question? I would buy neither. I spent enough time in the industry to know to stay away from airlines as a financial (or employment) investment.

So would I. But Doug is on record as saying he expects more mergers. Does DAL sound familiar?

 

[Busdrvr]

I just copied this from the "National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation". "The NMB would then hold an election between the union and the independent representative. If the independent representative wins the election, he or she can disclaim the contract entirely or just the forced unionism clause". (PICK and CHOOSE?? MAYBE?) "Detailed information about the NMB’s representation procedures can be found on its web site. The case that established the right of railway and airline employees to opt for non-representation is Russell v. NMB, 714 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1983)," Maybe you're smarter than their attorneys, I don't know.

Ummm, lets think about this.

UAL has a contract that opens in 09. It SUCKS. UAL ALPA would like to "renegotiate".

What you're telling us is that all we have to do is decertify ALPA, and bring in a "new union" (we'll call it APLA...) and now, PRESTO, we can throw out the contract and negotiate a new one...If only we had known...

Did you and USA320 got to law school together?

Your analysis is "weak" to say the least.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Dear Fellow USaviation.com Message Board Participant,

B)

 

[AAA73Pilot]

Ummm, lets think about this.

UAL has a contract that opens in 09. It SUCKS. UAL ALPA would like to "renegotiate".

What you're telling us is that all we have to do is decertify ALPA, and bring in a "new union" (we'll call it APLA...) and now, PRESTO, we can throw out the contract and negotiate a new one...If only we had known...

Did you and USA320 got to law school together?

Your analysis is "weak" to say the least.

It may be weak but I am only saying what I read. Check out this link:

http://www.nrtw.org/d/deauth_decert_rla.htm

Read about half way down. The interpretation is mine and I may be off. But........

 

[700UW]

Changing unions does not give you the right to renegotiate nor cherry pick your CBA.

Examples:

The M&R at UAL and NWA went from IAM to AMFA, only thing AMFA did was enforce the old IAM CBA until Section 6 negotiations happened upon the amendable date of the CBA.

M&R at WN went from IBT to AMFA, only thing AMFA did was enforce the old IBT CBA until Section 6 negotiations happened upon the amendable date of the CBA.

FAs at NW went from IBT to PFAA, only thing PFAA did was enforce the old IBT CBA until Section 6 negotiations happened upon the amendable date of the CBA.

FAs at NW went from PFAA to AFA, only thing AFA did was enforce the old PFAA CBA until Section 6 negotiations happened upon the amendable date of the CBA.

There are no provisions in the RLA nor any court decision that gives a union the right to renegotiate upon change of representation.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Wrong, the NMB had nothing to do with the settlement of the airbus arbitration.

Read it again, the COMPANY filed the grievance against the union, not the union filing against the company.

The case went to federal courts then was remanded to arbitration, the NMB had NOTHING to do with the process.

And your T/A makes modifications to your CBA, therefore it is part of your CBA.

How many CBAs have you negotiated?

How many grievances have you represented?

Well, that was my point. The NMB will not be concerned with the transition agreement. It may go to federal court, and whether you call that lawsuit a grievance or not makes no difference.

Thank you for using your perceived experience to make exactly the point I was trying to make. It will all go to federal court. And federal courts are slow. So the process will take years.

(It must be a tremendous burden on you...knowing it ALL, I mean.)

 

[700UW]

Federal Courts are not slow, the IAM filed suit against US in the airbus dispute and it was heard in less than two weeks.

IAM filed suit against US in the change of control and was heard in a month.

The NMB rarely gets involved in any arbitration case as the procedures are spelled out quite clear in the CBA.

I don't know why you keep posting about the NMB, they only get involved when one side asks them too.

The Grievance procedure is a legal and binding process under the RLA.

 

[Bear96]

I just copied this from the "National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation". "The NMB would then hold an election between the union and the independent representative. If the independent representative wins the election, he or she can disclaim the contract entirely or just the forced unionism clause". (PICK and CHOOSE?? MAYBE?) "Detailed information about the NMB’s representation procedures can be found on its web site. The case that established the right of railway and airline employees to opt for non-representation is Russell v. NMB, 714 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1983)," Maybe you're smarter than their attorneys, I don't know.

The bolded part is what I said in my previous post: Russell simply says that under the RLA, employees can opt for non-representation. It does not say anything about a new union having the right to "pick and choose" from the pre-existing CBA. Nor does what you quoted from the NRWLDF website say a new union has such a right.

As to the rest of the quote, you have somehow expanded the sentence, "If the independent representative wins the election, he or she can disclaim the contract entirely or just the forced unionism clause," to mean a new union can pick and choose anything in the pre-existing CBA, which is not what the sentence says.

The problem is that you are gravely misunderstanding what an "independent representative" is in this area of labor law. It does NOT mean "new union," or a union "independent" from a national one (i.e., ALPA), as you seem to assume. Rather, it means no union at all. The concept of an independent representative is discussed fully in Russell. It is a techincal means by which a work group under the RLA can reject any type of union representation. Instead of electing a new union, the work group can elect an "independent representative," who is just a co-worker and -- here is the key -- has no intent to bargain with the company or otherwise "represent" his co-workers the way a union does. Typically, after the election, the independent representative will simply declare that the workers wish to terminate collective representation, and go back to being a regular employee. In Russell the court found that under this arrangement the "independent representative" can reject the agency shop / union security ("forced union") clauses of the CBA yet (theoretically) leave the rest of the CBA intact because the independent representative arrangement extinguishes collective bargaining and shows the workers have rejected union representation, as is their right under the RLA. Of course, the practical effect of the arrangement is that the CBA no longer exists at all because there is no one left to enforce it, and the company can do what it wants since the workers have become non-union.

In short, "independent representative" under the RLA is the equivalent of "decertification" under the NLRA. It is just a roundabout way to get there because there is no explicit decertification provision in the RLA the way there is in the NLRA. It is a bizarre arrangement, and trust me, even if the East pilots are itching to get rid of ALPA, unless you want no union representation and no one to bargain on your behalf at all, you do not want this type of "independent representation."

 

[BoeingBoy]

I hate to pop the bubbles, but the transition agreement is very much a part of the CBA - both East and West. Unless, of course, the letters LOA stopped meaning anything within the last few days. Of course, it would be nice if LOA's stopped having any meaning when changing unions - pesky agreements like LOA 93 would just cease to exist........

Jim

 

[AWA320]

I hate to pop the bubbles, but the transition agreement is very much a part of the CBA - both East and West. Unless, of course, the letters LOA stopped meaning anything within the last few days. Of course, it would be nice if LOA's stopped having any meaning when changing unions - pesky agreements like LOA 93 would just cease to exist........

Jim

Wouldn't it be nice to get out of agreements just by changing unions?? Wouldn't every union use this?? I would love to just say I don't like this anymore so I am changeing to get somethinng better!! Ahhh but doesn't this blade cut both ways?!! Management would then say we no longer wish to use this contract so we are imposing a new one.

Contracts and LOA's are legal documents designed to protect both parties and unless one or rather both parties can prove that said agreement should no longer apply we will be stuck with it.

The transition agreement states that the pilot groups will work towards a JOINT contract not seperate ones. I can not see this management given what they have already done agreeing to seperate ops.

 

[pilot]

we are working toward a joint agreement and will continue to do so once ALPA is decertified. hence, the jnc. sure does take a long time to get to that agreement however. especially if a different union has to get involved with the logistics and all.

the dal pilots prevented a merger between lcc and themselves. the pilots have power. look at what just happened at nwa.

the east pilots have a lot more power than folks here realize or understand. regardless of what a contract does or does not say. if you don't believe it you should ask doug and prater. neither has been too succesful in doing what they are supposed to be doing since the windfall blew into town.

pilot

 

[USA320Pilot]

Yesterday AWA MEC Chairman John McIlvenna held a conference call and it appears every time he speaks he pours salt into the wounds of the US Airways pilots and increases their resolve to never let the Nicolau Award be implemented.

In his call McIlvenna made three important points:

1. The AWA MEC will not support any economic improvement to the East pilot’s contract if they do not agree to the Nicolau Award.

2. The AWA MEC is looking at filing a lawsuit against the East pilots for lost wages and he said “that we deserve while they drag out contract talks.â€

3. The AWA MEC will never agree to any amendments to the Nicolau Award.

I believe the toxic relationship between the two pilot groups is getting so bad that there will never be harmony or a settlement. This point and McIlvenna’s rhetoric is increasing the odds that the parties will have to have a separate contract of equivalent value and separate operations or it will take at least a decade to resolve the Nicolau Award problem, when the vast majority of US Airways pilots will be retired.

The US Airways pilots have supported the AWA pilot’s desire for Section 6 negotiations or a joint contract with separate operations and both of these options would provide a pay raise. It’s the AWA pilots who are not agreeing to options that would provide them a pay raise. Therefore, if the AWA MEC wants to file a lawsuit and then assess their membership to pay for the MEC’s legal fees the majority of US Airways pilots could care less if a frivolous lawsuit is filed.

Finally, I believe the Rice Committee will not view kindly the AWA MEC’s decision to never agree to any amendments to the Nicolau Award, which will likely increase the odds that one of the three Rice Committee options of a separate contract of equivalent value and separate operations (the others are a joint contract of equivalent value and separate operations or AWA Section 6 negotiations) will occur.

Why? The AWA MEC is not providing any practical alternatives called for by the Rice Committee, the AWA MEC continues to violate both of the EC’s resolutions, and the AWA MEC is giving the Company no other alternative, while McIlvenna continues to increase the US Airways rank-and-file anger.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[AWA320]

we are working toward a joint agreement and will continue to do so once ALPA is decertified. hence, the jnc. sure does take a long time to get to that agreement however. especially if a different union has to get involved with the logistics and all.

the dal pilots prevented a merger between lcc and themselves. the pilots have power. look at what just happened at nwa.

the east pilots have a lot more power than folks here realize or understand. regardless of what a contract does or does not say. if you don't believe it you should ask doug and prater. neither has been too succesful in doing what they are supposed to be doing since the windfall blew into town.

pilot

Really??? Hows parity coming along my man??? How much longer you going to be getiing your decert done? We wish you guys would hurry it up. WTH is taking so long anyway just pass out the cards get them signed and get it over with!!! We need you to get this done and ASAP.

 

[USA320Pilot]

AWA320,

The decertification drive is just one option open to the US Airways pilots. Decertification may be the best way to go, but with the ALPA EC and Rice Committee supporting solutions to the Nicolau Award that would work for the US Airways pilots, maybe the decertification effort is not in the East pilots' best interests.

Today in an ALPA Fast Read sent to about 60,000 airline pilots John Prater said, “To summarize, given all of this, the Executive Council decided that our union’s resources should be devoted to bringing about practical results through the efforts of the Executive Council, the Rice Committee, the MECs, and the Joint Negotiating Committee" to the Nicolau Award. “The result may lead to a merged agreement, umbrella agreements, or multiple agreements," Prater noted.

AWA320, Prater just sent an email to add ALPA International Pilots on file discussing the EC's two resolutions, the work of the EC, and the work of the Rice Committee. As you know the only option available to the US Airways MEC is separate contracts of equivalent value with separate operations", thus, the US Airways pilots are seeking ways to improve the pay and benefits of the AWA pilots and to preserve their pre-merger career expectation, which as we know is fair.

I found it interesting that Prater sent out a very detailed report on the EC and Rice Committee's action to all ALPA pilots indicating the "result may lead to a merged agreement, umbrella agreements, or MULTIPLE agreements."

Why do you think Prater did that?

Regards,

USA320Pilot