Hot News for February 2010


Newest Healthcare Newsletter

AFL-CIO Healthcare Comparison


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.


(All of the following information can be found at http://www.nmb.gov/mediation/mmenu.html)

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 <<<

Google
WWW http://www.twu567.org/