|
In February of 2001, the Association of Flight Attendants
("AFA") issued cries of "massive
interference" after it was trounced in the worst defeat in
airline organizing history. In a bid to protect her job, AFA
President Patricia Friend tried to spin this defeat at the hands of Delta
flight attendants into Delta Management malfeasance.
Patricia Friend promised that in a fair election, the AFA would have
won. Well, the National Mediation Board ("NMB" or
"Board") has ruled that the election was indeed fair. There was
no interference, and the AFA is still the loser.
Deltafa.org believes that you should read the
NMB determination for yourself. Don’t take our word for what it
says. Don’t believe the shrill AFA press release. Analyze it, and
think for yourself. However, if thinking for yourself is too difficult, we
believe our version is more credible, and you won't have to pay us
$39.00 a month to do your thinking for you.
After reading this determination, you will understand why the AFA
released that the shrill press release
explaining why the investigation result was wrong, and why that press
release was yet another attempt to cover up yet another example of Patricia Friend's
mismanagement of the AFA's resources. (Hey, are we being virulent?
More on that later.)
Background
When the National Mediation Board conducts an election, its goal is to
ensure that the election is conducted without interference, influence, or
coercion by the carrier. The Board calls this idyllic environment
"laboratory conditions." Basically, this means that the NMB
enforces an environment where employees can freely decide whether to vote
or withhold support for a union.
An investigation is launched when a union files allegations that that the carrier has
interfered in the employees’ choice. In effect, the carrier has
"tainted" laboratory conditions by taking some course of action
that has the effect of preventing the employee from exercising free
choice. Generally, this claim is made by a losing union against a carrier
after an election. However, some unions will file these allegations before the
votes are counted. In our election, the AFA filed its allegations before the
election period. The strategy is to have the charges investigated only if
the union loses. In our election, the AFA was the loser.
By filing interference charges, the AFA hoped to get a re-vote. This
would allow the AFA to have new chance to win an election without having to spend
more money for another organizing campaign. The AFA also hoped that by making
interference charges, it could get a re-vote using a "Laker"
ballot. A Laker ballot is used in situations where a company has severely
tainted the laboratory conditions necessary for a fair election and is
considered a
drastic remedy. The AFA wanted a Laker ballot because it makes it easier
for a union to win an election.
In the investigation of interference charges in our campaign, the NMB
found that Delta "through the totality of its conduct, did not taint
the laboratory conditions necessary for a fair election." 30 NMB 18,
145 (2002).
Hooray for the good guys.
Highlights of the Majority's Decision
The AFA contended that Delta interfered in the following ways. The NMB’s
findings are below each contention. Citations have been added.
If you wish to check, the page number is the last number before the date.
In the example 30 NMB 18, 124 (2002), the page number is 124. (Note that
this will not be the same page number as the Adobe pdf page number.)
1. Establishment of the Delta Flight Attendant
Forum
Delta did not hold out the Forum as an alternative to union
representation. 30 NMB 18, 124 (2002).
The Forum was created "to improve employee relations and
morale after . . . cuts in pay and vacation and workforce
reductions" 30 NMB 18, 122 (2002).
The Forum is used as a communications vehicle between
employees and management. 30 NMB 18, 122 (2002).
|
2. Support for the Freedom Force;
"The record does not establish that Delta officially
sponsored or funded the Freedom Force or the www.delta.org
(sic) web-site." 30 NMB 18, 121 (2002). (Well, the
deltafa.org budget certainly establishes the lack of support.)
|
3. Conferral of benefits
The requirement that a carrier make no changes in working
conditions where there is continuous organizing activity for
several years is not feasible. Adoption of the standard suggested
by the AFA would impair a carrier’s ability to function and as a
consequence, unfairly penalize employees (e.g. no pay increases or
benefit improvement for a several year period) 30 NMB 18, 113
(2002).
|
4. Harassment, interrogation, and surveillance
of AFA supporters;
The NMB found that the presence of supervisors in the lounges
was not interference. The NMB stated that it is not unusual for a
carrier’s management to increase its presence in lounges during
certain time periods to enforce carrier policies. Also, there was
no connection between the presence of supervisors and egregious
activity like discharge or ballot collection. 30 NMB 18, 117, 118,
(2002).
|
5. Pervasive and relentless anti-AFA
communications that overwhelmed the flight attendants freedom of
choice; and
Delta campaign publications such as "Myth Blaster"
and "Plane Facts" were neither coercive nor
misrepresented NMB processes. Using the "totality of the
circumstances" analysis, Delta communications did not taint
the election. 30 NMB 18, 133,134 (2002).
|
6. Misrepresentation of board procedures.
See No. 7 below.
|
| After the AFA filed its August 21, 2001
application, the AFA added the following contentions.
|
7. Informed flight attendant that those on
voluntary furlough were ineligible to vote, which is a
misrepresentation of the Board’s policy on furloughee’s
eligibility.
Misrepresentation was inadvertent, and Delta moved to repeatedly
correct error. The NMB found that this did not taint the
laboratory conditions. 30 NMB 18, 129 (2002).
|
8. Sent anti-AFA videos to employee’s homes
and played videos continuously in crew lounges
Delta managers played the videos, but did not force flight
attendants to watch them. In the videos, neither Sharon nor Leo
misstated NMB or RLA procedures. The NMB’s investigation
established that the vast majority of flight attendants never even
watched the videos. 30 NMB 18, 131 (2002).
(The truth is out. The only people that watched them were
the lawyers. Did you?)
|
10. Encouraged flight attendant to rip up
their ballots
"The Board has repeatedly stated that accurately
portraying the way an employee can vote no is not
interference." 30 NMB 18, 131 (2002) Delta’s "Give a
Rip" campaign did not taint the laboratory conditions. 30 NMB
132 (2002),
(It beats the "Give to a litter box "campaign that we
advocated.)
|
11. Used the September 11 tragedy as a reason
to vote against the AFA
The NMB found that the other allegations of interference by the
AFA were either not supported by sufficient credible evidence, or
would not have constitituted interference if they were true. 30
NMB 18, 142 (2002).
|
See #4 above.
|
13. Increased its one on one harassment of AFA
supporters
The NMB found that there were incidences of supervisor
initiated discussion about the union and there was also some
harassment of union supporters at certain stations, the incidents
were not part of a systematic effort. 30 NMB 18, 141 (2002).
|
14. Other AFA
Allegations
The NMB found that the other allegations of interference by the
AFA were either not supported by sufficient credible evidence, or
would not have constitituted interference if they were true. 30
NMB 18, 142 (2002).
|
The Dissent
A few notes on the dissent by Harry Hoglander that the AFA press
release so liberally quoted. First, we could understand how Mr. Hoglander
could be so disturbed at the NMB's Majority decision, if only had this been a close
election. However, in this election, only 29% of us voted for the AFA,
leaving a 21%+ 1 chasm between our vote and sufficient interest to
elect the AFA.
The isolated incidents that Mr. Hoglander lists in detail in his
dissent at 30 NMB 18, 149, 150 (2002) would be more compelling had they
occurred during the course of a close election. However, the large magnitude of the AFA’s defeat surely
relegates these isolated occurrences to harmless error.
Second, Mr. Hoglander infers a connection between the Freedom Force and Delta
management based on witnesses associated with the Freedom Force declining
to be interviewed by investigators. 30 NMB 18, 148 (2002).
Speaking for Deltafa.org, we never heard a peep from an NMB
investigator. Our contact information is on our
website. Maybe we did not hear from them because the NMB can't
seem to get our web address correct in its official documents.
To double check, we asked our virulent friends over at the Freedom
Force, and they virulently told us that they had not been contacted
either. The consensus at both of our virulent groups was that the
NMB hurt our virulent feelings by not giving us the virulent chance to
virulently say that we would not speak to them, virulently or otherwise.
Returning to the dissent, Mr. Hoglander writes "Based on this
refusal and other evidence, I would find that the Freedom Force and its
virulent anti-union website was unofficially sponsored and supported by
Delta." 30 NMB 18, 148 (2002).
Mr. Hoglander forgets that there is a difference between Management
laughing at the our antics while we use our First Amendment rights to
skewer the AFA, and Delta supporting us, unofficially or otherwise.
Let us restate, Delta did not support Deltafa.org. We did not
need the company to tell us we did not like the AFA. We came to that
conclusion all on our own, just like our virulent friends at the Freedom
Force, and She Who Came Before Us.
Deltafa.org is under the impression that in our country, under our
system, silence does not equal guilt - especially when an investigator
does not bother to send us an e-mail. The "tortured" reasoning
of this dissent resonates loudly in
our constitutionally protected ears.
Finally, Mr. Hoglander writes, "From my vast experience as a carrier employee, it is highly
unusual for groups of supervisors to frequent crew lounges." 30 NMB
151 (2002).
We are at a loss to understand why a retired TWA Captain would base his official opinion on his experience in a different department at a different
carrier. While Mr. Hoglander does have vast experience as a
exceptional pilot at
TWA, he does not have experience as a Delta flight attendant.
His experience as a retired TWA Captain does not give him any special
insight of what is normal in one of our flight attendant crew lounges, especially on blitz days.
We suspect that his vast experience
as a dues paying ALPA member and former ALPA Executive Vice President may
have been the basis for much of the reasoning in his dissent.
Other Tidbits from the NMB Decision
According to David Borer, AFA General Counsel, the AFA’s organizing
campaign began in 1992 or 1993 with authorizing cards and union literature
being circulated by the AFA in 1993. 30 NMB 18, 111 (2002)
"Generally, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the
Board will not consider evidence of occurrences prior to one year before
the application was filed" 30 NMB 18, 113 (2002)
The requirement that a carrier make no changes in working conditions
where there is continuous organizing activity for several years is not
feasible. Adoption of the standard suggested by the AFA would impair a
carrier’s ability to function and as a consequence, unfairly penalize
employees( e.g. no pay increases or benefit improvement for a several year
period) 30 NMB 18, 113 (2002).
"The record does not establish that Delta officially sponsored or
funded the Freedom Force or the www.delta.org
(sic) web-site." 30 NMB 18, 121 (2002). (Well, our buget certainly
establishes that fact)
"Finally, the Organization also alleges that the Freedom Force
web-site was supplanted by a new anti-AFA website www.deltaafa.org
(sic) AFA ‘surmise(s) that Delta and/or one of its union busting
consultants has funded and maintained the website." 30 NMB 18, 118
(2002).
"AFA describes Freedom Force literature as ‘virulent’" 30
NMB 18, 118 (2002) We feel neglected.
The investigation established that the AFA did conduct an aggressive
campaign. 30 NMB 18, 144 (2002).
Those are the facts of the NMB's determination as we virulently see
them. As always, we ask that you not believe what we
say. Read the
determination, and make your own decision.
Fly Safely,
Deltafa.org.
|
|
