Originally Posted by
FAULTPUSH
You're misinformed or lying. The LOA said nothing about representation. It had less to do with representation than the scope language in any contract. By your argument, your scope language violates the same laws, because it removes FAPA's "negotiating/representation power", but I don't see you crying foul on that one.
Which leaves my question: Who did LOA67 influence, who did it influence them into voting for, and who was doing the influencing? If you can't answer those questions, you have no case. The law in question is written to prevent companies from influencing employees to vote in a certain direction, whether it's for a certain union, or for no union at all. Please explain how RAH has coerced any pilots into voting in a certain fashion? Are you saying that Frontier pilots would have voted for IBT if it weren't for LOA 67?
(...sitting patiently, expecting no answer. Again.)
For your first point, that the commercial agreement says nothing about representation, thats not true. Paragraph E of the agreement states: "FAPAInvest or its designee(s), successor(s) or assigns have the sole authority to represent the interest of the Participating Pilots in any matter related to this Agreement."
With respect to your new BOD the agreement states that "FAPAInvest or another entity formed for the benefit of the Participating Pilots in connection with the Equity Participation will be allowed to designate a representative (with voting authority) on the Board of Directors of the Company" . While a good idea, this usurps representation by IBT or any union without approval of FAPAInvest or the pilots who are now represented by IBT. So your deal, carried over the threshold of the election, delineates power to FAPAInvest to bargain and negotiate for things pertaining to the LOA. That power should have gone to whoever won the election.
As far as influence, you'll find I never said anything about it, but it could be argued that LOA 67 influenced FAPA pilots to vote for RPC as RPC claimed they would enforce LOA 67 if I remember correctly. I think that was stated on this board, but maybe it was on the RPC board. If this issue were as simple as you like to distill it, the case would have been summarily dismissed by the judge when you petitioned, but it wasn't. So maybe your confidence in your position is misplaced. As for my position on this lawsuit. I think every other purchased pilot group would sign a "commercial agreement" with management days prior to a representation election, securing their negotiating rights for things contained in the LOA, if the approach was effective.
But in either case, I'll be back on here next year and in yearly intervals thereafter to see if BB and co have divested 51% equity to FAPAInvest, but I doubt it will happen.