<!----Enter Date Bellow *************> Weekly Update for October 20, 2000 <!----End Enter Date Bellow *************>
Weekly Update for <!----Enter Date Bellow *************> October 20, 2000 <!----End Enter Date Bellow *************>

<!----Enter Text Bellow **********>
Sisters and brothers...


There appears to be lot's of controversy surrounding the NEB decision to conduct another runoff election for the NATCA Executive Vice President. I have explained my thoughts and actions to all on this list via email last Monday. If you haven't received my correspondence, let me know and I'll send it to you. The main issues being sounded out on Natca.Net appear to be related to the timing of the appeal and the violation itself. Without going into great detail, I would just say that an awful lot of case law was presented to us during our deliberations. To sum up the standard concerning the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), a violation must first be established and it must have an adverse impact on the election result.

A Union must be able to substantially defend itself in showing that the violation did not impact the election result in order to withstand a protest or the DOL will order a new election. My feeling on the timing of the protest is this: the violation occurred during the first election which resulted in a runoff election. There is no way the Union could defend that the newsletter in question did not reach the eyes of one or several hundred engineers and controllers prior to the first election. If this information influenced the first election, it could have just as easily influenced the runoff election. As a Union, we could not defend dismissing the protest primarily because the vote difference was 16. If the margin between the two candidates was a few hundred, I believe that my feeling on upholding the NEC's determination might have been different.

I also believe that the election was not complete until after the runoff results were tallied; a violation was not immanent to the individual who filed the protest because there was no winner or looser. The member filed the protest over the runoff election not the main election, and since the Union could not substantiate that the clear violation did not have an impact on the results, I believed that another election was warranted. As for Mr. Faville's interests, no protest was filed by him or on his behalf. Clearly the newsletter was in violation of the LMRDA, however, considering the total votes for Mr. Faville, the impact was diminimous, and would not warrant a new election on his behalf.

As for the belief by many that we will be in the posture of running a new election after the this one, I believe that everyone is now much more educated on the need to be careful concerning the do's and don'ts when it comes to elections. I don't think any of us want to go through this again.

Seniority - I have been questioned by many FacRep's about the use of alternative methods to use in selecting schedules. After the NEB decision concerning the trimester schedule selection procedures, it would be a violation of seniority to allow a lower seniority member to pick a schedule that a higher seniority member did not have first choice on. In my opinion, it would also be a violation of seniority if a Local used FAA EOD, SCD, facility EOD, certification date, or anything that dated an employee. If you remember, the convention body established the NATCA seniority policy because Locals were using a variety of these dates for seniority purposes. The Union decided that one universal seniority date would be used in place of all others. To use these dates now would constitute, in my opinion and some of the other RVP's, a circumvention of the NATCA seniority policy. If a Local did not want to use seniority for selecting schedules, it would have to come up with some other method like a lottery.

CIC Training - There appears to be a difference of opinion at some facilities between the Union and management concerning an administrative shift or an operation shift for CIC training. I have addressed this issue with the division, and will have an answer by Monday.

IPP's - George and I are currently going over the hiring plan for the NGL with the division. We hope to conclude on Monday, and have definitive information for you by the FacRep meeting next week in Indy. One of the problems we have noticed is that the dissemination of who has IPP'd to what facility is miserably broken. Per the CBA, BUE's are to send their packages to the RO. What we have seen is that BUE's are sending their packages to the facility and the facility in some instances is not forwarding them to the region. And in some instances, BUE's are sending their packages to the RO, but the RO is not notifying the facility that they have an IPP package. Either way, information is being lost and it makes it very difficult to divvy up new hires without first filling some IPP's first. So, make sure your members get their IPP's to the RO, and we'll ensure that this information gets out to the facilities to cross check. This will help our members and the FAA.

3rd Level Grievances - The NATCA 3rd level advocates have concluded the review of about 200 grievances at my level. Unfortunately, there is a lot of missing information that was either in transit (newer grievances) or that has not been sent by the FacRep. I don't need to tell you that it's hard to argue a position when information is missing. The advocates will be contacting several facility reps over the next week to try and reconcile the missing information.

I would also like to welcome Doug Hartman to the 3rd level advocate group. Doug has lots of experience dealing with grievances as an elected member of the ZAU executive board. Doug has been an active member of NATCA for several years, and I am looking forward to his experience and expertise. I believe that Doug will provide a great avenue to the FacReps in our region in dealing with and resolving problems at the facility level. Welcome aboard Doug!

Election Endorsements - Although it has not been a huge problem in the NGL, there are some questions as to the legality of posting partisan politics endorsements on NATCA bulletin boards per the Hatch Act. After discussion with NATCA National (thank you Susan, Jim and Ken), it appears that the Union can endorse a candidate for US Congress, Senate and President. Please refer to 11 CFR 114.3; 114.4; 114.9; 114.10. I have a hard copy if you don't have access to the internet www.findlaw.com

STARS - In case you don't know, our STARS representative for NGL is Steve Lenertz (M98). If you have any questions, contact Steve at 612-713-4060.

LM-3/LM-4 - If you haven't sent in a copy of your LM-3's or LM-4's, please fax or mail a copy to the NATCA national office in care of Francis Alsop. If your not sure as to whether or not we have them at the national office, contact Francis and find out.

User Meeting - There will be a user meeting at ORD terminal on November 15 and 16. I encourage all of the reps in the greater Chicago are to attend and let our presence be known. This is a great opportunity to see and hear what the agency is telling the users and what the users are telling the media. If your not from the Chicago area, use some of your rep time to attend, or get official business to attend and FAM out.

Grievances on the Web - I have started the slow process of sanitizing all of the grievance responses, impasse positions, and negotiation requests that I have compiled over the years. Unfortunately, some of my finer work has been boxed and stored in some nook or cranny only
God knows where, but there is still a lot left on the hard drive... I will be installing these on the NGL web site for your use on similar issue that may arise in your facility; feel free to plagiarize. I will let you know when they will be available.


Oh well, that's enough for now... hope everyone has a safe and happy weekend.


Pat

<!----End Text Field **********>

Back to the weekly updates index