Originally Posted by
Ronaldo
Zoo, you are quoting the representation section. There is not representation dispute and you won't have one until an authorized party petitions the NMB to reinvestigate STS. After reversal of STS then you need to be found a separate craft and class, then you can have a representation election or do whatever you feel like.
The NMB has been enjoined in the past from allowing non-representative parties to petition for single carrier, I expect they might be hesitant to allow any random group of pilots to petition for STS reinvestigation. Don't get me wrong, I think it'll happen, it'll just take a long time I suspect.
Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. NMB, 29 F.3d 655 (D.C.
Cir. 1994), cert. denied sub nom. National Ry. Labor Conference v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 115 S. Ct. 1392 (1995). On remand the district court enjoined the NMB from investigating representation disputes sua sponte or at the request of a carrier and invalidated the Merger Procedures (Rail) insofar as they purported to authorize such investigations.
I think the burden for investigating the reversal of STS would naturally be higher than investigating for finding of STS. Again, I'm not sure so it would be nice to see your sources. Besides sections of the representation manual that don't deal with STS or reversal of STS.
Howdy Ronaldo. I am confused about the case you referenced as it could not possibly be less applicable to the situation at F9. Here is why it doesn't apply in any way F9...
Timing - the case to which you referred was originally submitted in 1991. Since that time, the NMB representation manual has been modified more than once. What was true regarding representation disputes in 1991 is no longer true in 2013.
Petitioner - even if we ignore the timing, the petitioner of the dispute was a railroad (or carrier). Carriers are NOT "parties under Section 2, Ninth" of the RLA. The one and only reason the referenced dispute was enjoined by the court was fact that a carrier submitted the dispute, not a labor organization or individual. Ironically, the NMB did in fact accept petitions from Carriers for several decades prior to the case you referenced. Regardless, F9 is not submitting the dispute. The dispute is being submitted by an authorized party in the eyes of the NMB, in accordance with the NMB Representation Manual, and most importantly in compliance with the RLA (Sec 2, Ninth).
You also have the sequence of events in the incorrect order.
[QUOTE=Ronaldo;1538253]
There is not representation dispute and you won't have one until an authorized party petitions the NMB to reinvestigate STS. After reversal of STS then you need to be found a separate craft and class, then you can have a representation election or do whatever you feel like./QUOTE]
Step 1. Authorized party petitions the NMB. This can be an individual and it will be an individual.
Step 2. NMB agrees that a dispute exists and conducts an investigation
Step 3. NMB determines a Single Transportion System exists amongst the Frontier pilots and only the Frontier pilots and orders an election.
Step 4. Showing of interest amongst the STS is required to participate on the ballot
Step 5. Election
Step 6. FAPA is determined to be Bargaining Agent for Frontier pilots.
"it is the duty of the National Mediation Board (NMB or Board) to investigate representation disputes among a carrier's employees as to who are the representatives of such employees and to certify to both parties, in writing the name or names of the individuals or organizations that have been designated and authorized to represent the employees involved in the dispute, and certify the same to the carrier."