AMO WINS AGAIN PART THREE
AMO WINS AGAIN PART THREE
MEBA has lost another round in the ongoing battle with AMO and Union representation of the Interlake fleet. This is just another stepping stone in path that may eventually lead to serious ramifications within the MEBA.
AMO prevails in Article XX case against MEBA
The Marine Engineers Beneficial Association violated Article XX of the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations Constitution when it claimed representation of the licensed personnel aboard the Great Lakes tug-barge combination Dorothy Ann and Pathfinder in March 2006, an impartial umpire has determined.
Ruling in a complaint brought before the labor federation by the Seafarers International Union of North America on behalf of American Maritime Officers, the umpire, Howard Lesnick, said MEBA "unquestionably displaced AMO" as the exclusive collective bargaining agent of the officers aboard the tug-barge. AMO, an affiliate of the SIUNA, had represented the Dorothy Ann and Pathfinder officers under a collective bargaining agreement with Interlake Transportation Inc., a unit of Interlake Steamship Co.
Article XX of the AFL-CIO Constitution prohibits encroachment upon one affiliated union’s jurisdiction by another affiliated union. A determination that Article XX had been violated could require the offending union to surrender all jurisdictional claims in the specific case, and it could open the offending union to sanctions. In this case, MEBA can no longer claim to represent the officers on the Dorothy Ann-Pathfinder without incurring penalties.
The jurisdictional dispute between AMO and MEBA arose on March 8, 2006, when AMO was notified by Interlake Steamship Co. that Interlake Transportation Inc. had been dissolved, and that the Dorothy Ann and Pathfinder had been transferred to the Interlake Steamship Co. fleet. Interlake Steamship Co., a longtime employer of AMO engineers, mates and stewards on the Great Lakes, had signed a 10-year collective bargaining agreement with MEBA in July 2003 while a valid three-year collective bargaining agreement between AMO and Interlake Steamship Co. was still in effect. The 2003 contract between MEBA and Interlake Steamship Co. covered the engineers and mates aboard Interlake’s seven self-propelled self-unloading bulk carriers
On the first day of the Dorothy Ann and Pathfinder’s sailing season in March 2006, "MEBA representatives boarded the vessels and advised the officers that they were now MEBA-represented and required to join it (MEBA) as a condition of continued employment," Lesnick noted in his decision.
In its Article XX complaint, SIUNA said AMO’s jurisdiction withstood the transfer of the Dorothy Ann and Pathfinder from Interlake Transportation Inc. to Interlake Steamship Co. SIUNA also charged that the Interlake Steamship Co. MEBA contract covering the officers on the Dorothy Ann and Pathfinder was the result of collusion between MEBA and the company.
Lesnick said SIUNA’s complaint of collusion between MEBA and Interlake Steamship Co. was "credible," and that the collusive "pattern" that led to the 10-year Interlake-MEBA contract in 2003 "was repeated three years later in relation to the Dorothy Ann."
posted by wff @ 11:34 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
As Posted in the 11-24-06 MEBA Telex Times
This week, M.E.B.A. was notified by the office of AFL-CIO President John Sweeney that an Impartial Umpire had ruled in a tug-barge accretion dispute on the Great Lakes. The ruling was not in favor of M.E.B.A.. In March of 2006, the company Interlake Transportation Inc. went out of business and the tug barge vessel Dorothy-Ann/Pathfinder was transferred to the M.E.B.A. contracted company Interlake Steamship Company. The ruling is vague and leaves open certain items that the Umpire was unsure of that may need to be worked out by the AFL-CIO executive board. Disappointingly, the Umpire seems to have given the AMO some deference for the time it was definitively and admittedly outside the AFL-CIO. Under the rules, M.E.B.A. has 14 days to provide a course of action to the AFL-CIO unless there is an appeal. M.E.B.A. had five days from the date of ruling in which to appeal. M.E.B.A. has already appealed the decision.
When AMO (formerly N.M.E.B.A. District 2) was an affiliate of National M.E.B.A., the organization was repeatedly found to be in violation of Article XX for raiding MM&P contracted companies. Those cases include raids by AMO involving Victory Carriers, Transoceanic Cable Ship Company and Ogden Marine Corporation (OMI).
But first, while the AMO was not an AFL-CIO affiliate (since it left in 1994), it became an even more raiding pariah organization run by the McKay brothers. M.E.B.A. members and retirees certainly know how true this statement is considering the flagrant raid of M.E.B.A. jobs in the ETC fleet while M.E.B.A. was still in command of the LNG vessels. Indeed, AMO's President Mike McKay sent communications to M.E.B.A. contracted vessels demanding that M.E.B.A. members join AMO or lose their jobs. The AMO contract included a disclaimer of representation rights for the junior officers, a 56% reduction in wages and wage related items - 85% reduction in MPB - a 10 day reduction in vacation days per month - and a large reduction in manning. Many members may remember a memo sent to the ships in the year 2000 from AMO's president announcing the terms of this dire contract. Even more distressing, by the end of the day, foreign officers had infiltrated the entire fleet under the AMO contract which finally resulted in the ships being crewed by foreign officers at the conclusion of the AMO contract. The initial raiding contract itself was a result of collusion between AMO's McKay and corporate officials.
The raid of M.E.B.A. by the AMO McKay brothers is noteworthy for more than just the fact that M.E.B.A. lost its jobs and that the contract was gutted. It is significant because AMO could not fill all the officer jobs. It is one thing if the AMO was able to fill every single officer job and provide health and welfare benefits to the officers, but that was not the case. Instead, those twenty plus years of providing good wages and benefits to U.S. merchant officers went out the window in the blink of an eye - an outsourcing of astronomical proportions.
M.E.B.A. is requesting that any M.E.B.A. members and retirees who have information relating back to the raid on the LNG carriers, to forward that information to M.E.B.A. Headquarters. Any information would include, but is certainly not limited to: emails; outlines of whether you had to retire as a result of the raid; how the raid impacted your livelihood; any paperwork you have that was transmitted to your vessels by AMO headquarters; articles written in trade journals; stories of failures once AMO took over the fleet; AMO contractual terms and conditions of the grossly substandard contract. M.E.B.A. needs this information. Please email the information to mebahq@d1meba.org or mail it to David Tubman at M.E.B.A. Headquarters, 444 N. Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20001.
Below is a synopsis of some cases where AMO was found in violation of Article XX and then AMO ignored the sanctions:
In the first case involving Victory Carriers, the MM&P had a long established collective bargaining relationship with this tanker outfit covering licensed deck officers. MM&P claimed in an Article XX hearing that the AMO had begun crewing two of the vessels after coming out of lay-up. The AMO denied this at the hearing, and there was not sufficient evidence at the initial hearing to prove that AMO had in fact begun crewing up the vessels with AMO deck officers. The hearing was then adjourned pending receipt of a U.S. Coast Guard crewing list. Two weeks later, the list was forwarded to the Umpire and sure enough there were AMO members sailing the vessels. The AMO was found in violation of Article XX for raiding the MM&P.
In the next case concerning Transoceanic, MM&P was involved in contract negotiations for a successor contract with the Company. The company announced that it would no longer bargain with MM&P. At a company sponsored meeting, which AMO officials attended, the Company told the MM&P members that they were entering into a collective bargaining agreement with AMO and the MM&P members could resign or be replaced. The Umpire ruled that the AMO was in violation of Article XX for raiding the MM&P.
In another case involving OMI, MM&P also had a collective bargaining agreement with this Company. Again during contract negotiations, the Company declared that it would no longer deal with the MM&P. The MM&P suspected that AMO had played a role in the OMI's repudiation of its longstanding contractual relationship. AMO did of course play a role, and this was one of the cases that M.E.B.A. had to get itself out from under sanctions leveled by the AFL-CIO. Up to this point, AMO had been an affiliate of National M.E.B.A. and as the parent National M.E.B.A. kept getting tagged with sanctions. AMO refused in every instance to bring itself in compliance with the many Article XX decisions. AMO ultimately left M.E.B.A. and thereby became a non-affiliated AFL-CIO Union.
The membership must always keep in mind the role the AMO leadership, the McKay brothers, played in the LNG reflagging dispute in the years 1999-2001. M.E.B.A. took a big hit as did the U.S. Merchant Marine.
Whatever historical perspective the TT may provide, it does not take away from the fact that the AMO Interlake lawsuit may cost every active MEBA Member as much as $100,000.
That's a lot of money to pay just so Davis doesn't have to admit to a mistake.
Post a Comment
<< Home