Originally Posted by
FAULTPUSH
I meant representation in the sense that it's been exclusively used in this thread - as labor representation, not business representation.
Employees in labor groups have had seats on the board before. Once again, it's a business thing, not labor.
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.
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.
Your scope was part of a CBA, signed between FAPA and Frontier management. After an election that CBA and the responsibilities of administering it fall under the newly elected leadership. The difference here is that the Commercial agreement carved out representation/negotiation powers after the election. So another analogy would be: if FAPA had negotiated different pay rates, and then secured the right to negotiate those pay rates only with FAPA after an NMB election. This hypothetical more closely (than the scope example) mirrors the situation.
As far as influence, I'm too lazy to look through the old RPC posts but I still think it could be argued that FAPA members were enticed to vote for RPC to allow administration of their LOA 67 and to keep their dues money separate from IBT. I'm not sure what deals have been offered between IBT and FAPA concerning separating your dues, so I'll stay out of that argument.
But I do not accept that the deal/Commercial Agreement/LOA 67 is only illegal under grounds of influence. I think the fact that the agreement carried over representation issues, means its illegal. In either case I understand why these things were done, but I really think BB will not divest 51%. We both know, he lied when he said he could keep you guys/gals separate. And I think he's lying now.