Originally Posted by
samc
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.".
I meant representation in the sense that it's been exclusively used in this thread - as labor representation, not business representation.
Originally Posted by
samc
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" .
Employees in labor groups have had seats on the board before. Once again, it's a business thing, not labor.
Originally Posted by
samc
. 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. .
Contracts are contracts. The election happened after the LOA. FAPA had no obligation to author its LOA's with a mind to who might be representing the pilots down the road. You might as well claim that our scope was invalid because it "carried over the threshold of the election" into a conflict, or that the bidding language was faulted because it didn't take into account that there might be an IMSL down the road.
Originally Posted by
samc
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 hadn't read that, but IBT is under the same obligation to enforce the LOA, which they are failing to do. Our vote for RPC was because we wanted fair representation and protection, which IBT reps had openly said they would not do. The only reason IBT is fighting it (against the will of those that they are obligated to represent) is because they don't want to lose the dues and jobs. It's all about money, which is why IBT isn't pushing to have an election on the flight attendants - they are afraid they might lose that one.
So back to my question, which remains unanswered:
Who was influencing who to vote for who?
As far as I can tell, it's only illegal if the company was attempting to influence an employee group to vote for a particular reprentative, or lack of representation. That was not the case.