ATA files lawsuit against National Mediation Board over voting rule

By Aaron Karp | May 18, 2010

US Air Transport Assn. yesterday filed a lawsuit in US federal court seeking to overturn the National Mediation Board's decision last week to change air and rail union voting rules, alleging that the board overstepped its bounds in reversing more than 75 years of precedent.

NMB ruled last week that from June 10, an airline work group can win representation if a majority of those participating in a certification election vote "yes." Previously, a majority of all members of the work group (including those not casting votes) needed to vote in the affirmative (ATWOnline, May 12).

Robert Siegel, the lead attorney representing ATA in the matter, said during a conference call that the suit asks the court to make "a declaratory judgment that the new rule is invalid under the Railway Labor Act." He said ATA later this week will file a motion seeking a preliminary injunction staying the June 10 imposition of the rule until after the ATA lawsuit is resolved. It also will petition the court to handle the suit on an "expedited basis."

Countering claims by some analysts that the case will take years to litigate, Siegel said, "I don't think this is going to take years at all…We don't think it should take any longer than 60 days." He asserted that the issue is straightforward: "The National Mediation Board does not have the authority to change this [rule], only Congress does…This is a matter of right granted to [air and rail] employees by Congress [in the 1934 RLA]."

ATA said in a statement, "This new rule turns 75 years of history on its head without compelling justification…ATA looks forward to a quick resolution to this case, so that airlines and their employees can move forward together and more efficiently address their mutual goals."

ATA members participating in the case include Delta Air Lines, JetBlue Airways, Alaska Airlines, AirTran Airways, Astar Air Cargo, Atlas Air, Evergreen International Airlines, FedEx and Hawaiian Airlines.Noticeably absent are ATA members such as United Airlines, Continental Airlines, US Airways and American Airlines. Siegel said no significance should be read into those carriers' absence, noting that they "are not opposing" it.

Discuss this news 8

18 May07:50

Kind of ironic; "Noticeably

By airbuspilot

Kind of ironic;

"Noticeably absent are ATA members such as United Airlines, Continental Airlines, US Airways and American Airlines. Siegel said no significance should be read into those carriers' absence, noting that they "are not opposing" it."

Under the 75 year RLA vote count methodology which the ATA seeks to maintain, then those abstaining from action to overturn should be counted as a No vote :)

18 May10:29

The old rule was unfair. If

By Jim

The old rule was unfair. If you didn't vote that meant a "NO" vote. So if you were sick, dead, on vacation, on leave, military leave etc etc and didn't vote that was a vote against the union. What other type of election works this way? Can you imagine your Congressman or Senators counting all registered voters who don't show up for an election as a vote against the incumbent or the challenger? They would cry "foul".

The new rule is fair. If you don't vote...your vote doesn't count. You either vote Yes or No. The majority of those that vote determines the outcome period.

The ATA just fears their employees becoming more Unionized. It's the same old double-standard...it's o.k. for senior management to have their own contracts with the company but not o.k. for the lowly front-line employees? How is that fair? Management can have their contracts with the company...hold the company at gunpoint with big bonuses and golden parachutes. Furthermore management can be part of ATA national but front-line employees can't have a national union giving them a national voice. Doesn't seem right...

Unlike management who are like "temps" anyway, they work for ING, for example, then come to Delta for a few years...then go to Mirant or some other place, airline employees are "married" to their airline by the seniority system. Therefore have the long-term interests of their company foremost in mind. Management couldn't give a hoot about the long-term health of their current company...for management it's all about lining one's pockets and then lining up the next career move. To think otherwise is to be naive.

All the ATA accomplishes with this lawsuit is the perpetuation of the downward spiral of labor/management relations. Not that they care in a year or so these senior managers will be on to greener pastures at some other company (hopefully for them a non-union one), like they always do... Leaving the the current airline employee to deal with the wreckage left behind.

18 May13:00

The LAW (the RLA) says a

By Anonymous

The LAW (the RLA) says a MAJORITY of the craft or class will determine the CBA. If the craft or class is is composed of 100 then 51 must vote for a union. What's so hard to understand about that. That's what the LAW says. The NMB can't change the LAW. Congress can change the LAW but the NMB can't. This isn't hard.

18 May13:59

The RLA, as it was written in

By Michael Massoni - Flight Attendant

The RLA, as it was written in 1934 (see antiquated in Webster's), is fundamentally flawed in that it takes the basic right of representation and sets an unreasonable standard in order to achieve it. We don't apply such an onerous standard to the election of our local, state and federal representatives. If you apply the RLA standard to such representational votes, the majority of the populace would have to vote in order to elect such representatives. If that was the case we would never be able to elect anyone to represent us given the turnout at the polls! I believe, like so many other laws that relate to labor, the Captains of Industry (which by-the-way are the people who chartered organizations like the ATA) had a hand in both the wording and interpretation of the act.

Bottom line – it’s high time that the rules of engagement between labor and management be the same. This requires the right to representation be afforded to every working person in this country, regardless of their socioeconomic standing. I sincerely hope this legal challenge goes down in a ball of flame because we need to turn “75 years of history on its head” and there is without a doubt, “compelling justification”…its called Democracy.

19 May07:51

Very Well Said Jim!!

By Anonymous

Very Well Said Jim!!

19 May14:16

Jim asks " What other type of

By eolesen

Jim asks " What other type of election works this way?"

There are various municipal and state requirements for mandating a simple majority of registered voters when the action being taken is going to affect them in perpetuity.

Election of a public official can be "undone" at the end of their term.

Annexation attempts to bring unicorporated property into the jurisdiction of a neighboring town typically require majority vote of all landowners in the affected parcel.

Some municipalities and even states also have similar requirements on non-general elections (e.g. bond issues, state constitutional referrendums).

One state -- Oregon -- repealed in 2009 a state law requiring 50%+1 of registered voters to approve property tax increases. But they also have a vote-by-mail system, which eliminates any arguments of disenfranchising voters who didn't know about the election.'

20 May09:42

It's clear from the

By IguanaMike

It's clear from the sentiments of unionists herein that the tired old "us-vs-them" mantra is alive & well, esp' during a time when this greatest of all nations is led by a class-warfaring President & when failing Euro-socialism overseas brings about more harm to economies than good. All good unionists have but 1 thing in mind as do all good managers, & it's they themselves. A unionist will shut down a company & cripple an industry or a nation if he/she doesn't get his/her way, done & done. The selfish hypocrisy of those who deride mgmt is disgusting. It takes TWO to thrive or to dive, folks; mgmt is as important in this regard as is labor, but your average unionist needs the hatred of all things Corporate in order to feel empowered or whatnot, which is juvenile & destructive. As for being married to a company via seniority, that's bulls**t as well. The seniority system artificially protects lazy laggards as well as legitimate performers. Ask any public school teacher with a conscience. Seniority rewards folks NOT for the merits of their performance but instead for their lack of courage in seeking better opp'ties elsewhere; it rewards them for sticking around long enough, essentially, no matter how well or how poorly they perform. Accountability is nil, esp' at the gov't employee level but also w/in the private sector, alas --- & I'm speaking from direct experience after serving for yrs on BOTH sides of the labor/mgmt fence.

It doesn't matter who has what ulterior motives here, if any. What does matter, komrades, is that once again the Fed's, under this President, feel emboldened to change rules at-whim without doing so according to any legal rules themselves. Again, the hypocrisy herein is grotesque, and frightening. See the BIG picture, folks, beyond your own selfish selves.

-----

24 May04:06

The change to the votes is

By Mark

The change to the votes is right, it's either a yes vote or a no vote and if you don't vote it ain't worth squat either way. BUT then there should be a representation vote (present union continues, new union is voted in, or the vote for no union) and this representation vote should be required every 5 years or so (that way it would keep your union reps on their toes and doing the best job they can). Just my opinion!