Hot News for February 2010
From the TWU and the National AFL-CIO
You can call the White House switchboard directly at:
202-456-1111 OR
202-456-1414
The Senate and the White House cut a last-minute deal with Republicans
to approve some of President Obama's nominees. But working people
have been left out once again. Craig Becker and Mark Pearce, whom
President Obama nominated for seats on the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB) were not included in this deal. The White House cannot
neglect the NLRB, which decides cases involving American workers'
rights.
You can help increase pressure on the White House to recess NLRB
nominees Craig Becker and Mark Pearce.
Protecting workers' rights is one of the reasons we worked so hard
to get Obama elected. He must act to recess Craig Becker and Mark
Pearce -NOW- not later. Delaying their appointments until the next
recess, in late March, (purportedly part of the "deal"),
is not good enough. We need to express our outrage and let the White
House know that it must live up to its promises and act NOW, during
this week's Presidents Day recess.
Click-to-Call to contact the White House switchboard and demand
that President Obama defy Republican obstructionism and use his executive
power to appoint Craig Becker and Mark Pearce to the NLRB during
the Presidents Day recess. Or, you can call the White House switchboard
directly at 202-456-1111 OR 202-456-1414.
HERE'S WHAT TO SAY:
When you call the White House discuss these important points:
President Obama needs to act to recess Craig Becker and Mark Pearce
NOW -during the Presidents Day recess -so the NLRB can do its job.
Working people are getting pushed aside and it's past time to do
something about it.
Senate Republicans are using the filibuster to block President Obama's
nominees to the National Labor Relations Board -which decides cases
involving American workers' rights.
For over two years, the NLRB has had only TWO of its five members.
Workers need an NLRB that can and will enforce the National Labor
Relations Act and protect workers' rights - not an NLRB handicapped
by vacancies.
President Obama's nominees -Craig Becker and Mark Pearce -are highly-qualified,
well-respected labor lawyers. They were nominated seven months ago
-- last July.
In a deal with Republicans, the Senate on Thursday confirmed 27
other appointees -but still nothing on the appointees who protect
workers. Working people cannot be asked to take a back seat any longer.
************************************************************************************************
From: Mike Cavanaugh [mailto:Mcavanau@aflcio.org]
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 2:55 PM
Cc: Bill Samuel; Denise Mitchell; Damon Silvers; Jerry Acosta; Jon
Hiatt; Karen Ackerman; Lynn Rhinehart; Nancy Schiffer; Paul Lemmon;
Sandy Felder; Thea Lee; Ken Johnson
Subject: Request from President Trumka re: Recess Appointment to
NLRB
To: All State Federations, Area and Central Labor Councils
President Trumka is asking each of you to call - and to please ask
10 of your Executive Board members to call - your Democratic Senators
and Members of Congress as soon as possible. Please ask them to urge
the White House to use its authority during the Congressional recess
to appoint Craig Becker and Mark Pearce to the National Labor Relations
Board - immediately.
Senate Republicans filibustered Craig Becker's nomination earlier
this week, so despite the fact that a majority of the Senate voted
to confirm this highly qualified labor lawyer to the NLRB - the nomination
has been stalled for the seventh month.
This is outrageous, and the American labor movement needs to demand
that the White House fill the vacancies on the Labor board, so that
workers' rights can be protected.
Please use the attached Talking Points to for the calls, and please
urge your Board members to do the same.
Please let us know how your calls go, and whether Members of Congress
will call the White House to weigh in on this critical issue. You
can e-mail back to me or your Regional Director. National field staff
will be following up with you about this, as well as about the developing
plans for a National Week of Action (March 8 -13) our JOBS campaign.
Mike Cavanaugh
Deputy Director, AFL-CIO Field Department
815 16th Street NW
Washington DC 20006
mcavanau@aflcio.org
Talking Points for Calls to Democratic House
and Senate Members About NLRB Recess Appointments
- Working people are getting short shrift and it’s past time to
do something about it.
- Senate Republicans are using the filibuster to block President
Obama’s nominees to the National Labor Relations Board – which
decides cases involving American workers’ rights.
- For over two years, the NLRB has had only TWO of its five members.
Workers need an NLRB that can and will enforce the National Labor
Relations Act and protect workers' rights - not an NLRB handicapped
by vacancies.
- The protection of workers’ rights is one of the changes working
people expected to see when they elected Pres. Obama and majorities
in the House and Senate. It’s been 13 months since
the inauguration.
- President Obama’s nominees – Craig Becker and Mark Pearce – are
highly-qualified, well-respected labor lawyers. They were
nominated seven months ago -- last July.
- On Tuesday, a majority of the Senate voted for Craig Becker,
but Senate Republicans filibustered to block the nomination from
going forward. By contrast, when President Bush made his
initial appointments to the NLRB, a package of nominees including
three management lawyers was approved unanimously, by voice vote,
in November of 2002.
- Working people cannot be asked to take a back seat any longer.
- In a deal with Republicans, the Senate on Thursday confirmed
27 other appointees – but still nothing on the appointees who protect
workers.
- President Obama needs to give recess appointments to
Craig Becker and Mark Pearce during the Presidents Day recess
so the NLRB can do its job. Please call the White House
and urge the President to make these recess appointments without
delay.
Compiled by Ed Sills of the Texas AFL-CIO
The more things change the more they stay the same.....
Texas no stranger to imported labor
Some of the welders who
were brought into the U.S. to help build a bridge over the Trinity
River weren't even working for the Italian company that was providing
steel for the project and weren't even Italian, WFAA-TV reports.
The workers were hired last year despite skyrocketing unemployment
in the U.S. and despite the use of federal, state and local tax
dollars to build the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge. Not long after work
began, it was discovered that workers had assembled a major portion
of the span incorrectly and the work had to be dismantled and reassembled.
Seven of the 11 welders have seen their visas revoked and the other
four are at risk for the same action if they leave the U.S., reporter
Byron Harris states.
The episode raises all sorts of legal questions, especially considering
that the bridge is being built with federal, state and local tax
dollars. Claims made by the company about the workers' special expertise
-- along with the claim that they were eligible to take the jobs
in the first place -- have simply not held up.
The "Italian welders" who came into the U.S. under false
premises to help build a bridge over the Trinity River weren't even
all Italian, WFAA-TV reports in a followup to a story that aired
last fall.
Some of the workers who took good jobs from U.S. welders as unemployment
was skyrocketing are from Slovakia, suggesting. even the Italian
workers weren't cheap enough for the bosses running this project
on federal, state and local tax dollars.
The government has revoked several of the work visas.
Brother Mike Cunningham of the Texas Building and Construction
Trades Council and Brother Ronnie Smitherman of the Iron Workers
are among those quoted in the story.
The link below includes the video of the TV broadcast and links
to earlier stories on the project:
http://www.wfaa.com/news/investigates/Italian-Workers-Lose-Visas-After-WFAA-Investigation-83680437.html
Italian workers lose visas after WFAA investigation
by BYRON HARRIS / WFAA-TV
Posted on February 5, 2010 at 10:15 PM
Updated Saturday, Feb 6 at
7:03 PM
NEWS 8 INVESTIGATES
DALLAS — The new Calatrava-designed bridge over the Trinity River
in Dallas is made of steel fabricated in Italy by the Italian firm
Cimolai. Eleven Italian steelworkers were given B-1 visas to come
to Dallas and assemble the structure -- a two-year, 70,000 man-hour
job -- after Cimolai argued that the Italians had special welding
skills with the steel.
Construction is specifically prohibited under the provisions of
the B-1 visa, but Cimolai maintained the workers would not be building
the bridge but rather "installing equipment."
A News 8 investigation asked whether the Italians had unique skills
American welders don't have, and if Italian steel is different than
American steel.
Texas construction unions said the premise was a travesty, an excuse
to use cheaper labor, and a circumvention of the Davis-Bacon Act,
which requires that construction using taxpayer monies utilize American
labor.
"Companies use the cheapest labor they can get," said
Michael Cunningham of the Texas AFL-CIO. "These guys are welders
just like our welders in this state. And there's a lot of unemployment
in this state, and our guys could be doing this work, too."
After the News 8 story aired last November, the Texas Department
of Transportation -- the "customer" for the bridge --
requested an investigation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE).
When seven of the eleven workers returned to Italy for Christmas,
their visas were revoked by the U.S. Department of State. Four Italians
remain in Dallas.
A letter written by an immigration lawyer working for Cimolai argues
that the State Department violated procedure in not permitting the
Italians to re-enter the U.S., and that they should be re-instated.
In the letter -- addressed "Dear Interested Parties" --
attorney Angelo Paparelli calls for Texas senators and congressional
representatives to intervene to get the visas back. But the letter
also reveals some new facts in the case.
Not all of the workers are employed by Cimolai, which manufactures
the unique steel. Some are simply employees of an Italian steel
assembly firm. Additionally, not all the workers are from Italy,
with special Italian skills; some are from Slovakia.
There is at least one more Calatrava-designed bridge slated for
construction over the Trinity River. Texas workers say they hope
that contract will be handled differently.
E-mail bharris@wfaa.com
Management ‘Syndicate’ Sought Cheap Labor for Texas Capitol, Too
In light of developments noted here yesterday in the probe of the
apparent illegal use of Italian and/or Slovakian labor to build
a taxpayer-funded bridge over the Trinity River, the historical
account below of the labor struggles during the building of the
Texas Capitol is timely.
Hat tip for the link to Dave Shapiro, an attorney and former legislative
aide to Ralph Yarborough and Carlos Truan who is a close reader
of this e-mail (and who describes this breaking scandal as “the
21st Century's version of repeated efforts by downtown Dallas business
establishment and real estate interests, Trammel Crow, Simmons,
Collins, Miller, to damn the Trinity and exploit it”, pun intended).
The account by The Handbook of Texas Online of a similar episode
that occurred 128 years ago and involved the building of the Texas
Capitol includes at least four points worth noting: 1) As is the
case now, unions of the time were protesting the importation of
cheap labor; 2) Convict labor, which is the subject of another labor
battle that continues to this day, was used in addition to foreign
labor; 3) The Scottish workers were promised above-market wages,
then were cheated; 4) The scheme blew up, costing the perpetrators
far more than they would have paid in prevailing wage. In the case
of the Capitol, criminal charges ensued. Given the lies uncovered
so far in the WFAA-TV investigation, a criminal probe might yet
happen in connection with the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge.
The phrase “eerie similarity” comes to mind, or maybe just “it
is ever thus”:
The Handbook of Texas Online
CAPITOL BOYCOTT. In 1882 the Texas legislature contracted with
Mathias Schnell of Rock Island, Illinois, for construction of a
state Capitol, promising as compensation more than three million
acres of public land. Twelve days later three-quarters interest
in the project was transferred to the Illinois firm of Taylor, Babcock,
and Company, and five months later Schnell transferred his remaining
interest to the same company. Principals in the company, which became
known as the Capitol Syndicate, were Charles B. Farwell, United
States senator from Illinois; his brother, John Villiers Farwell;
Abner Taylor, a United States Representative from Illinois; and
Amos Babcock. Initially, the Capitol was to be built of Texas limestone,
but when limestone proved unsatisfactory, granite from the Burnet
area was substituted. Since a fall in land prices from 1883 to 1885
made it difficult to meet the expenses of the syndicate, Taylor,
who acted as chief contractor, asked the legislature to help by
furnishing convict labor for quarrying the granite and for building
the needed rail line from Burnet to Austin. Taylor agreed to pay
sixty-five cents a day to house, feed, and guard the convicts. Owners
of the quarries at Marble Falls agreed to furnish the granite free
of charge. Shortly after this, construction of the building was
subcontracted by Gustav Wilke.
The use of convict labor in competition with free labor was strongly
opposed by all organized labor groups. Moreover, Wilke had already
aroused the antagonism of the International Association of Granite
Cutters by using nonunion labor on other jobs. He placed an ad in
the Journal of the International Association of Granite Cutters
for thirty cutters to work "on red granite, steady work, climate
good and healthy, union wages." The following month, referring
to this ad, the local union in Austin placed a notice that no union
men had been hired, there was little work to be done, and workers
should not be "gulled" by the description of the climate.
Wilke wrote the union headquarters stating he would hire whomever
he chose and would not allow the union to dictate to him. The union,
by a vote of 500 to 1, declared a boycott against the job and warned
all granite cutters to stay away from Austin. Wilke sent a telegram
to the union stating that if the union would accept Quincy, Massachusetts,
wages, he would guarantee that no convicts would cut granite for
the capitol. These wages were $2.75 to $3.00 a day. The custom,
however, was that wages on new quarries were set at the level of
the nearest competitive quarry, in this case Graniteville, Missouri,
where the wages were $3.50 a day. According to the national office
of the granite cutters, the official wage for Austin was $4.00 per
day, so the offer was refused.
The contractor sent a personal representative, George Berry, to
Aberdeen, Scotland, to secure cutters. Berry promised eighteen months'
steady work at four to six dollars a day. Eighty-eight Scottish
workers came to the United States under contract to work on the
building. Transportation expenses were to be deducted from their
first two months' wages. At New York they were met by representatives
of the union and a United States marshal, who held the bringing
in of the workers a clear violation of the Alien Contract Labor
Law, passed in February 1885. Twenty-four workers refused to scab,
but sixty-four continued on the way to Texas.
As a consequence, charges were filed in the federal district court
at Austin against the members of the Capitol Syndicate. All were
indicted in March 1886, but the hearing was postponed until August
1887. Aberdeen recruits who left employment with Wilke gave depositions
against the syndicate in March 1887, and in July those who remained
were asked to sign a statement that they had no contract. Some later
admitted signing knowing that the claim was false. Before the case
was heard, two years later, members of the syndicate were removed
from the suit, leaving only Wilke, who admitted the charges and
was fined $1,000 for each Aberdeen man, a total of $64,000. He was
given eighteen months to appeal for executive clemency and finally
in 1893 paid $8,000 plus costs. The union claimed Wilke pled guilty
to shield syndicate members, who then used their influence to reduce
the fine. Considering the status of unions in the United States
at that time, the fact that the federal prosecutor left town the
day of the hearing, leaving prosecution to attorneys hired by the
Knights of Labor, and the fact that two syndicate members were also
members of the United States Congress, the claim was probably correct.
Many of the Scottish workers did not remain long in Texas. Anger
over the expense of the seven-day train trip from New York and the
unpleasant surprise that wages were not as promised left only fifteen
working on the Capitol by May 1887. It was estimated that more than
one-half had no granite-cutting experience and were unable to earn
even a dollar a day. Vouchers from May 1886 through May 1887 indicate
that the average wage was twenty-seven cents an hour, although individual
wages ranged from four to fifty cents an hour. Wilke had promised
to reduce the number of convicts working, but from July to October
1886 the number increased from 300 to 350. From the standpoint of
preventing the use of convict labor and use of scabs, the boycott
was a failure. In 1890 Wilke and Berry paid a penalty of $500 each
and agreed to use union cutters on future jobs….
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ruth A. Allen, "The Capitol Boycott: A Study
in Peaceful Labor Tactics," Southwestern Historical Quarterly
42 (April 1939). Marjory Harper, "Emigrant Strikebreakers:
Scottish Granite Cutters and the Texas Capitol Boycott," Southwestern
Historical Quarterly 95 (April 1992).
Date: February 3, 2010
To: Officers and Executive
Board of Local 567
Re: M. L. K. Conference Report
The Civil and Human
Rights Committee will start meeting every other month starting
in February on every other Thursday at 1 pm in the TEO Union Office.
The first meeting will be on Thursday, February 11, 2010. I want
to thank President Larry Pike, Officers and Executive Board members
for allowing me to be a part of this committee and for your support.
Thank you for your trust and understanding.
John Johnson Co-Chairman
Civil and Human Rights Committee
Attachment: MLK Report submitted
by Nan Warren
MLK CONFERENCE AND WORKSHOP JAN. 14-18, 2010
submitted
by Nanean Warren Local 567, Civil & Human Right Committee
Secretary
The Martin Luther King Conference and observance was
both informative as well as an enlightening educational experience
for me. Participating in Greensboro, NC was an experience of a
life time.
The first day was full of an awareness of the unification
of various Union participates that were here for the same goals.
It was a time full of pride and joy that I had as I met and visited
Union members from all over the country, from different walks
of life, and different occupations. We were welcomed by Robert
Brown, Triad Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO. Our Guest speaker
for the evening was Rev. William Barber II, President of the NC,
NAACP. Being there to see and hear the strength and passion that
they all had for the working class family of today. The rewards
of standing united in a common goal. He said that in order to
affect change we must with ourselves.
A day of service was truly
a team effort. The project that we participated in was an old
warehouse that was now used to hold goods and items that were
donated from various stores and outlets. The warehouse was used
to support the community in a variety of ways. The goods were
distributed to foster parents, students, teachers, and people
on food stamps, Medicaid, welfare and people in half way houses.
Here they had an opportunity to come in and get supplies and clothing,
personal goods, tapestry or other items that were available to
them. A person could come and get outfitted for a job interview
or uniforms for school. The problem the warehouse had was the
number of items that arrived daily and a limited number of workers
to sort it out and put it up where their clients could use it.
With our united front we did in 4 hours what it would have taken
months to accomplish by the few workers that they had.
Saturday
started with Rosalyn Pelles, Director AFL-CIO Civil, Human and
Women’s Rights Department, on a day of reflection of the 50th
Anniversary of the Greensboro Sit-ins. Greensboro is a historical
place that brought the thought and idea to life. I listened to
the story of four courageous college students, three of which
are still alive, Joseph McNeil, Jibreel Khazan (Ezelle Blair,
Jr.), and Franklin McCain, that took a stand and made their mark,
a place in history. It was a moment in time that would be the
start of a new understanding for people of color. That by the
acts of these few came many, and from the many came hundreds and
those hundred came thousands, till they stood together for change.
It was stated that you need three things to affect change:
- A VISION
– To see where you are now and to know where it is you want
to go.
- COURAGE – To accomplish the goals you have set.
- FAITH with
COMMITMENT – To be able to sustain the vision you have.
They said
that changes starts with each individual, it starts with self.
That segregation ended when we say that it ends, when we put things
talked about into actions. They told us that there are some characteristics
of people when it’s time to get things done. First you have the
DREAMER- The one that initiates a conversation of thought or an
idea of how things could be. Then you have the PHASES- Those that
are excited with new conversations and thoughts, willing to help
because of the newness of an idea. You have the SHIFTS – These
are the people that start with the right motives for getting involved
in the movement however they soon rotate the responsibility to
others as if they are missing out. Yet they quietly fade away
into the background themselves or completely disappear. Of course
you have the NUMBERS folks –These are the people that sit and
watch until they see who else is going to get involved. And of
course you have the RARE people – the people that see an idea,
a thought, a chance for change, starts a movement that sparks
a reaction, which moves from a Dream to a Reality. The uplifting
afternoon continued as Arlene Holt Baker, Executive Vice President,
AFL-CIO spoke about the road ahead and those that paved the way
for us. That we have many things to do but it all starts with
a single thought, “If not
me then who, if not now then when?” Saturday was filled with workshops
and a variety of speakers that had wonderful and powerful things
to say.
Sunday was a day of worship and continued workshops followed
by the Dr Martin Luther King Junior. Awards Banquet where the
keynote speaker for the evening was Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney
General US Department of Justice, Civil Right Division. Mr. Perez
stated that in the 1960’s we were standing up for equality and
that even though time has passed and it is 2010 we still have
a long journey ahead. That change must start today, it must start
now and it starts with us. That though the voice of one came many,
and for many came thousands, and with thousands we stood, united
to make a change.
Monday ended with the parade down Main Street
in observance of MLK Celebration.
NMB Mediation Process
The purpose of mediation under the Railway
Labor Act is to foster the prompt and orderly resolution of collective
bargaining disputes in the railroad and airline industries. These
disputes, referred to as "major" disputes, involve the
establishment or revision of rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.
The Railway Labor Act imposes a duty on the parties "to make
and maintain agreements ... and to settle all disputes ... to avoid
any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier ...".
The parties should attempt to resolve collective bargaining disputes
through direct negotiations. Failing that, either party may involve
the Board's services or the Board may involve itself on its own initiative.
The Board will employ a variety of methods, including but not limited
to, traditional mediation, interest-based problem solving, or facilitation
to peacefully conclude collective bargaining. If, in the Board's
expert assessment, mediation will be unsuccessful, the Board will "induce
the parties to submit their [dispute] to arbitration." No changes
to the status quo may be made until the Board had taken a final action.
If, in the judgment of the Board, the unresolved dispute will threaten
to interrupt interstate commerce "to a degree such as to deprive
any section of the country of essential transportation service",
the President may create an emergency board to "investigate
and report" on the dispute.
MEDIATION
NMB Responsibilities and Activities
NMB's statutory
authority as national mediator for the airline and railroad industries
is critical to public interest in maintaining an uninterrupted flow
of U.S. Commerce. Strikes, lock-outs, and other forms of self help
in these industries may occur only after the NMB has determined that
further mediation would not be successful and after a cooling-off
period of 30 days following NMB release from mediation.
When a significant disruption of essential transportation becomes
unavoidable, the NMB so notifies the President of the United States.
When the NMB notifies the President that a collective bargaining
dispute threatens to deprive a significant portion of the country
of essential transportation services, the President may appoint an
Emergency Board.
An Emergency Board temporarily delays a potential work stoppage
and provides recommendations on potential resolution of the dispute.
NMB expertise in mediation and its discretion to determine when it
is that mediation has been exhausted, however, ensures that bargaining
disputes rarely escalate into disruptions of passenger service and
the transportation of commerce.
97% of all mediation cases in the history of the NMB have been successfully
resolved without interruptions to Public Service. Since 1980, the
success rate has been nearly 99 percent.
GENERAL INFORMATION
The Railway Labor Act (RLA) (www.nmb.gov/documents/rla.html)
requires labor and management to make every reasonable effort to
make and maintain collective bargaining agreements within the airline
and railroad industries, without disruption of airline or railroad
transportation services. Mediation of collective bargaining agreements
in these industries are the only disputes within the National Mediation
Board's (NMB) jurisdiction.
Negotiation disputes in the non-rail and non-airline private sector
are handled by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (www.fmcs.gov)
under the Labor Management Relations Act. Collective bargaining representation
of employees in the Federal sector (United States government employees)
is administered by the Federal Labor Relations Authority pursuant
to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Title VII. (www.flra.gov)
Collective bargaining representation of other public sector employees
(state, county and municipal government employees) varies and depends
on whether there is a state or local law which permits collective
bargaining.
One of the purposes of the RLA is to provide for the prompt and
orderly settlement of collective bargaining disputes. As provided
for in the RLA, the National Mediation Board (NMB) is responsible
for providing mediation services to help the parties reach a settlement
should the parties fail to reach an agreement during direct negotiations.
If the parties are unable to reach a voluntary agreement to establish
or modify a collective bargaining agreement, either party may apply
for the mediation services of the NMB. Once mediation is invoked,
the NMB conducts mediation meetings until an agreement is reached
or until the NMB concludes no agreement can be reached despite its
best mediatory efforts. If the NMB reaches this conclusion, it urges
both sides to resolve their dispute through binding arbitration.
Upon rejection of the proffer of arbitration by either party, the
NMB releases the parties into a 30 day cooling off period. During
the cooling off period, neither side can alter the status quo. At
the end of 30 days, the parties either reach an agreement or engage
in self help. In some situations, the parties may be required to
participate in a Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) and defer any
self help action until 30 days after the PEB makes its recommendation.
These questions and answers are meant to provide general guidance
only. They do not provide definitive determination of any mediation
matter and are not to be construed as legal opinions that may be
cited in any administrative, legal, or arbitral proceeding.
Frequently
Asked Questions: Mediation
GENERAL INFORMATION
The Railway Labor Act (RLA) (www.nmb.gov/documents/rla.html) requires
labor and management to make every reasonable effort to make and
maintain collective bargaining agreements within the airline and
railroad industries, without disruption of airline or railroad transportation
services. Mediation of collective bargaining agreements in these
industries are the only disputes within the National Mediation Board's
(NMB) jurisdiction.
Negotiation disputes in the non-rail and non-airline private sector
are handled by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (www.fmcs.gov)
under the Labor Management Relations Act. Collective bargaining representation
of employees in the Federal sector (United States government employees)
is administered by the Federal Labor Relations Authority pursuant
to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Title VII. (www.flra.gov)
Collective bargaining representation of other public sector employees
(state, county and municipal government employees) varies and depends
on whether there is a state or local law which permits collective
bargaining.
One of the purposes of the RLA is to provide for the prompt and
orderly settlement of collective bargaining disputes. As provided
for in the RLA, the National Mediation Board (NMB) is responsible
for providing mediation services to help the parties reach a settlement
should the parties fail to reach an agreement during direct negotiations.
If the parties are unable to reach a voluntary agreement to establish
or modify a collective bargaining agreement, either party may apply
for the mediation services of the NMB. Once mediation is invoked,
the NMB conducts mediation meetings until an agreement is reached
or until the NMB concludes no agreement can be reached despite its
best mediatory efforts. If the NMB reaches this conclusion, it urges
both sides to resolve their dispute through binding arbitration.
Upon rejection of the proffer of arbitration by either party, the
NMB releases the parties into a 30 day cooling off period. During
the cooling off period, neither side can alter the status quo. At
the end of 30 days, the parties either reach an agreement or engage
in self help. In some situations, the parties may be required to
participate in a Presidential Emergency Board (PEB) and defer any
self help action until 30 days after the PEB makes its recommendation.
These questions and answers are meant to provide general guidance
only. They do not provide definitive determination of any mediation
matter and are not to be construed as legal opinions that may be
cited in any administrative, legal, or arbitral proceeding.
1. Q: When do collective bargaining agreements expire under the
RLA?
A: Under the RLA, collective bargaining agreements do not expire;
instead they become subject to change as of a specified date and
upon "notices of intent" by
the parties to change some or all of the elements of the agreement. Until a mutually
newly negotiated agreement is accepted by both parties, the provisions of the
original agreement remain in full force. This is commonly referred to as "status
quo."
2. Q: How do parties initiate negotiations under the RLA
A: The parties exchange notices of intent to change or amend the
existing contract. These formal notices are referred to as "Section
6" notices.
3. Q: What are "direct negotiations"?
A: Direct negotiation is the first step in contract negotiations
under the RLA, during which the parties meet without the assistance
of a mediator.
4. Q: How long does it normally take to negotiate agreements under
the RLA?
A: The length of negotiation, including both direct and mediation
varies with each case. Normally, the complexity and number of issues
bargained-over are the key determinants.
5. Q: Does the NMB use methods other than traditional mediation
to assist parties in reaching agreements?
A: Yes. The NMB has initiated a program to train parties
in the principles of Facilitated Problem Solving. This training
program is voluntary, and is offered upon the request of the parties.
Facilitated Problem Solving is a negotiations method which focuses
on the interests of the parties and finding mutually acceptable
solutions to issues. Facilitated Problem Solving Training is a
1.5 day training program designed to illustrate problem solving
approaches through interactive exercises. Should the parties decide
to introduce this approach in their negotiations, the NMB will
provide a Facilitator to assist the parties in implementing the
process.
6. Q: If a case is in litigation, does that mean the
RLA isn't working?
A: No. Under the RLA, the NMB does not have jurisdiction over circumstances
such as a party's failure to bargain in good faith or failure to
adhere to the status quo provisions of the RLA. Therefore, if either
party feels that the other is violating the RLA, it is appropriate
to seek a remedy in court.
APPLICATIONS FOR MEDIATION
7. Q: What happens if the parties cannot reach an agreement
in direct negotiations?
A: If either party believes an agreement cannot be reached
in direct negotiations, that party can apply for mediation with
the NMB. Upon application, the NMB will docket the application
and assign a mediator to the case.
8. Q: Can the parties file a joint mediation application?
A: Yes, parties may file jointly with the NMB for mediation
services.
9. Q: Do both parties have to sign the application for
mediation?
A: No, only the party applying for mediation services must
sign the application. The signature must be from the highest authority
in the organization, i.e., an officer of either the Union or the
Company. If the parties file jointly, then both parties must sign
the application.
10. Q: Where do we get the mediation application?
A: Applications for mediation may be obtained through the
NMB web site or from the Director of Mediation office at the NMB.
(www.nmb.gov/mediation/mapply.html)
11. Q: What happens after the application is received by the
NMB?
A: The application is first reviewed to ensure that it is
completed properly and appropriately, and if so, the case is then
docketed.
MEDIATION PROCESS
12. Q: How
are mediators assigned to cases?
A: When
an application for mediation is received, the Director of Mediation
and Senior Mediators consult concerning case assignment. They consider
a variety of factors, including individual work loads, mediator
availability, schedules, desires of the parties, the history of
a given mediator with the parties, mediator background, complexity
of the case, and other factors.
13. Q: What
kind of background or experience do the NMB mediators have?
A: NMB
mediators typically come from either Union or Company backgrounds
and have extensive labor relations experience in either the rail
or airline industries. Mediator biographies may be found on the
NMB web site. (www.nmb.gov/directory/dirmed.html)
14. Q: During
the mediation process, what is the role of the mediator?
A: The
role of the mediator is to assist the parties with productive dialog
on their issues. The mediator can and will use a variety of techniques
to ensure this does occur.
15. Q: Can
the NMB determine where the parties will meet when they are in
mediation?
A: The
courts have held that the NMB has the authority to establish where
and when the parties will meet while in mediation. Normally, however,
the meeting site and dates are mutually agreed upon among the parties
and the mediator.
16. Q: Can
the NMB determine when and/or how often the parties will meet when
they are in mediation?
A: Again,
meetings are normally established by mutual agreement among the
parties and the mediator, but during mediation the NMB does have
the authority to dictate when the parties will meet, for how long
they will meet, and when meetings will be recessed.
17. Q: How
long does mediation last?
A: There
is no time limit for the mediation process. It can take just a
few meetings, or it can take many months, depending upon the complexity
of the negotiations and many other factors unique to each contract
negotiation. The NMB has the authority to decide when and if to
end mediation. Under the RLA, the NMB ceases mediation efforts
when it concludes that all reasonable efforts to reach a voluntary
agreement through mediation have failed.
18. Q: What
does "status quo" mean?
A: "Status
quo" is used to describe the terms of the contract in place
at the beginning of direct negotiations. During direct negotiations,
mediated negotiations, and any cooling off periods after mediated
negotiations, neither party may violate the status quo by making
unilateral changes in wages, benefits, or working conditions.
19. Q: Why
does the NMB Recess a case during mediation?
A: Recess
is one of the many tools a mediator uses in managing a Mediation
case. If a case is recessed by a mediator, it is for a specific
purpose related to the particular facts of the given case.
PROFFER OF ARBITRATION
20. Q: What
is a "proffer of arbitration"?
A: When
the NMB believes that further mediation efforts will not result
in an agreement, it issues a proffer of arbitration, which is an
offer to the parties to arbitrate any remaining issues.
21. Q: Why
doesn't the NMB make a proffer of arbitration when one of the parties
asks for it?
A: Under
the RLA, the NMB is responsible for making its best efforts to
help the parties reach an agreement without resorting to self-help.
While it will listen to requests from the parties for a release,
it is the NMB's responsibility to keep parties in mediation until
it has expended all reasonable efforts to reach an agreement.
22. Q: What
happens if either party rejects the proffer of arbitration?
A: If
either party rejects the proffer of arbitration, the NMB releases
the parties from mediation and they enter a 30-day count down,
or cooling off, period.
COOLING OFF PERIODS
23. Q: What
happens during the cooling off period?
A: Normally
the NMB invites the parties to meet during the cooling off period
in order to further mediate an agreement. These meetings are often referred
to as "public
interest mediation" or "super mediation."
24. Q: What
if no agreement is reached during the 30-day cooling off period?
A: If
no agreement is reached by the end of the 30-day cooling off period,
the parties are free to exercise "self-help." This means
that the Union is free to strike or engage in other activity, and
the Carrier is free to impose its last best offer or temporarily
cease operations or engage in other self-help activity, unless
a PEB is created.
PUBLIC INTEREST MEETINGS
25.Q: What
are public interest meetings?
A: During
the 30 day cooling off period the NMB will call the parties back
to the table for further discussions. These meetings are referred
to as public interest meetings or super mediation meetings. Generally,
these meetings are called at or near the end of the count down
period, but they can be called at any time during the 30 day time
frame.
PRESIDENTIAL EMERGENCY BOARD (PEB)
26. Q: What
is a "Presidential Emergency Board' (PEB)?
A: During
the 30-day cooling off period, the NMB makes a determination regarding
the impact of a strike. Pursuant to Section 160 of the RLA, the
NMB "notifies" the
President that in its "judgment" the dispute between
a carrier and its employees cannot be adjusted and "threaten[s]
substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such
as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation
service." Once the President receives such
notification, the President may, "in his discretion, create
a board to investigate and report on such dispute. The NMB submits
a recommended list of potential neutrals to the President. The
PEB usually has 30 days to develop a proposed agreement and present
that agreement to the parties for consideration. After the PEB
delivers its proposed agreement, there is a further 30-day cooling
off period.
27. Q: What
happens if either party rejects the PEB's proposed agreement?
A: If
either party rejects the PEB's proposal, the parties may, after the
30-day cooling off period, engage in self-help.
28. Q: Is
there any circumstance in which the parties are constrained from
engaging in self-help after rejecting a PEB's proposal?
A: Yes.
It is possible for the Congress to intervene and legislatively mandate
a settlement.
>>> return to top of
page <<<<
>>> contact the webmaster <<< |