AMO VERSUS MEBA the saga continues

AMO VERSUS MEBA the saga continues

Posted 3-16-07 From AMO web site
M/V Cort complaint charges MEBA with second violation of Article XX of the AFL-CIO Constitution

A formal complaint charging the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association with a second violation of Article XX of the AFL-CIO Constitution, this time for manning the Interlake vessel M/V Stewart J. Cort, was filed this week on behalf of American Maritime Officers.


The Marine Engineers Beneficial Association (MEBA) already has a standing Article XX violation with the AFL-CIO for claiming representation of the officers aboard the Interlake tug-barge Dorothy Ann/Pathfinder. Article XX prohibits one federation-affiliated union from encroaching upon the jurisdiction of another.

The Article XX charge pertaining to the M/V Cort was filed with the AFL-CIO March 12 by Michael Sacco, president of the Seafarers International Union of North America, with which AMO is affiliated.

The M/V Cort is operated by Interlake Leasing III, a subsidiary of Interlake Steamship Co. The president of Interlake Steamship, James Barker, recently told officers of the M/V Cort that they would have to sever their ties with AMO and join MEBA, and offered them large bonuses to do so.

The AMO-represented officers refused and were terminated by Interlake. They are currently picketing the ship at its winter berth at the Clure Public Marine Terminal of the Duluth Seaway Port Authority, where the M/V Cort is undergoing maintenance and repair in preparation for the 2007 season. Union shipyard workers who were doing fit-out work onboard the M/V Cort walked off the ship and are honoring the AMO picket line.

Interlake brought in engineers represented by MEBA, who have crossed the picket line and are working onboard the ship.

AMO had been the exclusive collective bargaining agent for ship officers and stewards working aboard vessels operated by Interlake Steamship until 2003. At that time, Barker and the president of MEBA, Ron Davis, secretly signed a contract to replace AMO members with officers represented by MEBA and removed the captains and stewards from the collective bargaining agreement.

The Interlake Steamship contract with MEBA was signed before the company's collective bargaining agreement with AMO had expired and is now the subject of ongoing lawsuits in Ohio charging MEBA with tortious interference.

Separately, the full-term contract between AMO and Interlake Leasing III covering the officers and stewards aboard the M/V Cort expired in 2006 and was extended indefinitely while a successor agreement was negotiated. In February of this year, Interlake and AMO successfully reached an agreement upon a contract for the M/V Cort.

However, during a subsequent company gathering in Florida, Barker told AMO-represented officers from the M/V Cort they would have to switch unions to continue working on the ship. In a letter dated March 5, Interlake notified AMO that it would not be signing the agreed-upon contract.

"Interlake's conduct and tactics in this matter are outrageous," said AMO National Executive Vice President Dan Smith. "Both sides invested a lot of time and effort negotiating in what we thought was good faith. Interlake walked away from a contract they had agreed to and bluntly attempted to compel AMO members to abandon their union.

"Interlake's written admission that it won't accept the fair terms other operating companies have already signed, and the refusal of AMO members to accept the conditions the company tried to foist on them, says a lot about Interlake's motives, and about the integrity and resolve of AMO officers," Smith said.

"AMO is committed to achieving a fair contract for our members who work on the Cort," said AMO National President Tom Bethel. "AMO will picket the ship for as long as it takes. Our members on the line have the full support of their union."

In November 2006, an impartial umpire considering a separate complaint pertaining to the Dorothy Ann/Pathfinder determined that MEBA had violated Article XX of the AFL-CIO Constitution. The impartial umpire, Howard Lesnick, said MEBA had "unquestionably displaced AMO" as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the officers aboard the vessel.

Lesnick also noted "credible" evidence of collusion between MEBA and Interlake Steamship Co. He said the collusive pattern that led to a 10-year contract between MEBA and Interlake in July 2003 "was repeated three years later in relation to the Dorothy Ann."

In January 2007, a subcommittee of the AFL-CIO Executive Council upheld the impartial umpire's determination.

Read more!

AMO versus MEBA

As reported on the AMO website:

Union workers honor picket line after Interlake fires MV Stewart J. Cort ship officers for refusing to switch unions

American Maritime Officers members are picketing the vessel MV Stewart J. Cort at the Clure Public Marine Terminal after the ship’s operating company, Interlake Leasing III, told the ship’s officers to join a different union (MEBA) and then terminated their employment for refusing to comply.



After the picketing began March 11, many of the shipyard workers who were performing maintenance and repair work onboard the MV Cort walked off the ship. The workers honoring the AMO picket line are represented by the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

The MV Cort is currently at the Clure Public Marine Terminal of the Duluth Seaway Port Authority undergoing extensive maintenance and repair, and was scheduled to have resumed operation later this month.

Interlake Leasing III, Inc., operates the MV Cort for Mittal Steel USA. Interlake Leasing is a subsidiary of Interlake Steamship Company. The president of Interlake Steamship, James Barker, told ship’s officers last week in Florida that they would have to sever their ties with AMO and join a different union, the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association (MEBA). The officers working aboard the MV Cort refused.

"Why would we take a pay cut working with MEBA but doing the same job?" said Dale Miller, the ship’s second assistant engineer.

The ship’s officers represented by AMO were supposed to have reported to work March 12 to prepare the ship for sailing March 23. After firing the ship’s officers, Interlake brought in ship engineers represented by MEBA to begin the fit-out work on the MV Cort.

The AMO officers picketing the ship were encouraged by the show of solidarity from the shipyard workers, who ceased working aboard the vessel when the picket began.

"We had electricians come in this morning and they stopped and said they weren’t crossing the picket line," said Kevin Wend, the ship’s third assistant engineer. "We stood with AMO on the first go-around with Interlake and we will stand with them this time."

AMO had been the exclusive collective bargaining agent for ship officers and stewards working aboard vessels operated by Interlake Steamship and its subsidiaries until 2003. At that time, Barker and the president of MEBA, Ron Davis, secretly signed a contract to replace officers represented by AMO with MEBA members and removed the captains and stewards from the collective bargaining agreement.

The Interlake Steamship contract with MEBA was signed before the company’s collective bargaining agreement with AMO had expired. The collusive Interlake-MEBA contract is now the subject of ongoing lawsuits in Ohio charging MEBA with tortious interference.

Separately, AMO and Interlake Leasing had recently reached an agreement on a contract covering the officers and stewards working aboard the MV Cort.

However, Interlake held a company meeting at a resort in Marco Island, Fla., last week and had some of the officers of the MV Cort and their families attend. During the company meeting, Barker told AMO officers they would have to join MEBA and offered them cash bonuses to break ties with AMO and join the rival union.

"They told us they were switching from AMO to MEBA," said Matt Williams. "They offered a $10,000 signing bonus and they gave us 24 hours to make a decision one way or another."

Williams has worked aboard the MV Cort for about eight years and was the relief chief engineer and first assistant engineer on the ship.

"They called us out. Jim Barker said they wouldn’t sign the contract with AMO--you have to go with MEBA," said Chief Engineer John Grard, who has worked regularly aboard the MV Cort since 1988.

"What really gets us--they flew us down there and they flew our families down there," Grard said. "Talk about the last supper. He has this big party down there in Marco Island and then he pulls this.

"I feel strongly that Jim Barker would never have taken this on if Mittal Steel didn’t give them backing," he said. "Mittal Steel has the ore contracts and there’s no way I can think of that Interlake can fulfill the contract and deliver the ore on time. It just isn’t going to happen.

"This is a test case," Grard said. "This is a point and we have to fight it. A lot of people are honoring the strike. The local unions are really helping us out."

AMO officers will picket the MV Cort for as long as it takes, said AMO National Representative Stan Barnes, who is on the line with the ship’s officers.

"AMO is here until the boat leaves and, if it does manage to get underway, there will be picket lines wherever it goes," Barnes said.

Read more!

A Message from Mike Jewell

Mike Jewell anounces challenge to Ron Davis and sets up web site MEBA UNITED

A Message from Mike Jewell

Greetings to my MEBA brothers and sisters, MEBA retirees, and all the family and friends of the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association.

I have been approached by numerous MEBA members and retirees asking me to step forward and challenge Ron Davis for president in the upcoming MEBA election this year. I proudly accept the challenge and will use this forum (MEBA United) as part of my campaign to promote and convey my message to all. Therefore, I welcome you to the first issue of the MEBA UNITED TIMES.

The entire contents of Issue No. 1 of the MEBA UNITED TIMES can be veiwed via
MEBA UNITED

Read more!

Blog Update

Blog Update

Google has taken over The Blogger. I have restarted the Blog under Google. Those who have posted before need to repost with a new Google log on and password. We will work from there to reestablish those who were on the list before.

Thank you

Read more!

McKAY RESIGNS AT AMO

McKAY RESIGNS AT AMO

From the latest postings on AMO website.

Bethel named president as McKay resigns; AMO board launches effort to recover union funds

Michael McKay today resigned as national president of American Maritime Officers following his January 5 conviction on multiple felony counts in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Fort Lauderdale.


To fill the vacancy, the AMO national executive committee -- acting under its authority as provided in the American Maritime Officers National Constitution -- named Thomas Bethel to complete McKay’s term in office, which began January 1.


AMO National Secretary-Treasurer Jose Leonard, AMO National Deep-Sea Vice President Joseph Gremelsbacker, AMO National Vice President At Large Edward Kelly and AMO National Great Lakes Vice President Daniel Smith supported Bethel in the unanimous action by the NEC. Bethel had served as AMO national executive vice president.


Meanwhile, members of the AMO national executive board announced that the board would file suit against McKay and his brother and co-defendant, former AMO National Secretary-Treasurer Robert McKay, to recover money obtained from AMO illegally by Michael McKay and Robert McKay -- both of whom were convicted of racketeering, embezzlement, conspiracy and fraud. The joint union-employer trustees of the AMO Pension, Medical, Vacation and Safety and Education Plans were said to be preparing a similar suit.


In addition, measures were taken to deny Michael McKay and Robert McKay access to union offices, other than to retrieve personal property.


Under federal law, a union official, representative or employee found guilty of any felony must resign his post immediately upon acceptance of the jury’s verdict by the presiding judge. But, in McKay’s case, the court reportedly agreed to allow McKay additional time in office pending sentencing in March 2007.


However, Bethel, Leonard and Smith were ready to initiate impeachment proceedings against McKay with the unanimous support of the national executive board of AMO had McKay not resigned. This action, which is provided for in Article XXIII of the AMO national Constitution, would have removed McKay from office and from AMO membership.


"The initial actions taken today by the national executive committee and national executive board will help AMO overcome the difficulties linked to the federal government’s prolonged investigation of AMO and the AMO Plans and the indictment, trial and conviction of Michael McKay and Robert McKay," Bethel said. "We take our fiduciary responsibilities seriously, and we will do whatever is necessary under U.S. law and regulation and the AMO National Constitution to protect AMO’s interests."


Bethel added: "This case caused deep division and concern within our ranks, but recovery and reconciliation are within reach. Meanwhile, I can assure AMO members everywhere that our union remains strong and financially sound. There is new but experienced and responsible leadership, and we as an administration remain committed to long-term job and benefit security for all AMO deep-sea, Great Lakes and inland waters members and their families.


"I look forward to working with everyone on the AMO national executive board and with AMO members in all areas and in all trades," Bethel concluded. "This administration offers accessibility and accountability, and I welcome all comments and questions."


-- January 8, 2007

Read more!

MEBA AND IOMMP = MOLA

MEBA AND IOMMP = MOLA


MERCHANT OFFICERS LABOR ALLIANCE
By And Between
MARINE ENGINEERS BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION and
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS MATES AND PILOTS

This Agreement is made by and between District #1-Pacific Coast District,
Marine engineers Beneficial Association (:MEBA”) and International Organization
of Masters, Mates & Pilots (:IOMMP”).

Recitals:
MEBA and IOMMP represent United states Coast Guard licensed merchant officers who work Aboard U.S. flag commercial vessels in domestic and international commerce. MEBA and IOMMP also represent United States Coast Guard licensed civilian mariners working aboard Vessels operated by the United States government agencies, including the Military Sealift Command and the Army Corps of Engineers. Over the years MEBA and IOMMP have worked closely together for the mutual aid and protection of their respective members. Indeed, both organizations and their respective members have achieved considerable success when they
have worked in unison.

But, as separate labor organizations, each with their own history, structure and priorities, over the years MEBA and IOMMP also have worked in competition and at cross purposes with one another. Such divisions too often have resulted in disappointing results for both organizations and and their members.

In an ever-globalizing industry, MEBA and IOMMP believe it is in their best interest to forge a new, cooperative relationship predicated on inter-union coordination which to the fullest extentpossible, avoids competition and discord.


Accordingly, consistent with such objectives, and in accordance with the terms and conditions setforth herein , MEBA and IOPMMP hereby adopt and enter into this Maritime Labor Alliance.

Terms:

1. Establishment of Alliance and Effective Date: Effective the first day of the month following ratification of this Agreement by MEBA’s and IOMMP’s membership in accordance with each organizations established procedures as set forth in the constitutions and bylaws, there shall be established an alliance known as the Merchant’s Officers Labor Alliance (“MOLA”).
2. Purpose: MOLA shall exist for the purpose of forming and strengthening the fraternal relationship between MEBA and IOMMP so that both organizations may secure stronger contracts with increased job security for their respective members. MOLA shall strive to develop the framework for the eventual unification of the two organizations.
3. Governing Structure of MOLA: MOLA shall be governed by a Joint Operating Committee(“JOC”) consisting of six (6) Directors, three (3) of whom shall be appointed by MEBA (“MEBA Directors”), and three (3) of whom shall be appointed by IOMMP (“IOMMP Directors”), in accordance with each organizations established procedures.
4. Quorum: No action may be taken by the JOC with out a quorum. A quorum shall require
at least two (2) MEBA Directors and at least two (2) IOMMP Directors.
5. Ratification of Action and Deadlock Procedure: The MEBA Directors shall, collectively,
have one (1) vote and the IOMMP Directors likewise shall, collectively, have one (1) vote. All actions requiring a vote of the JOC Directors shall be deemed ratified only upon a vote Of 2-0. All actions requiring a vote of the JOC Directors that result in a vote of 1-1 shall beconsidered “deadlocked” and therefore not ratified. Any matter that results in a deadlock shall be referred to a two person Joint Oversight Board (“Joint Board”), consisting of the president of MEBA and IOMMP, respectively. The Joint Board shall have the power to resolve any deadlock in any manner as it is in its discretion deems appropriate provided that such resolution is based upon unanimous consent. In the event the Joint Board is unable to resolve the deadlock, then the matter shall remain ungratified and closed.
6. Responsibilities and Duties of JOC: The JOC shall meet periodically and as necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of MOLA. Its responsibilities and duties shall include the following.
A. Coalition Bargaining: The MEBA and IOMMP shall through the OC jointly negotiate the following commercial contracts with the following companies:
American Ship Management Central Gulf E-Ships
Horizon Lamont-Doherty Matson
Sulphur Carriers Maersk Waterman
Alaska Marine Highways Black Ball Transit WA. State Ferries
In addition, the MEBA and IOMMP through the JOC negotiate the following government contracts:
Patriot Contract Services Central Gulf Horizon
Matson Waterman
For future government contract bids, it is agree that the organizations will develop bilateral agreements for the specific government solicitations in which employers of both organizations plan to submit proposals. To the extent practicable, said bilateral agreements for government contracts shall be structured so as to permit cross shipping of the members between the two organizations. Further the organizations will support and encourage the re-establishment of the “Tripartite Agreement” The JOC may also recommend to the MEBA and IOMMP executive boards which collective bargaining contracts would be appropriate for coalition bargaining by the two organizations. Collective bargaining contracts designated and approved for coalition bargaining shall hereafter be referred to as “Coalition Contracts”, and the joint negotiating teams of such Coalition Contracts designated by MEBA and IOMMP shall hereafter be referred to as “Joint Negotiating Committees” or “JNC’s”. Each JNC shall formulate bargaining proposals and strategies. Each JNC shall also develop appropriate ground rules to carry on negotiations from start to completion. MEBA and IOMMP agree that they will actively support each other throughout all Coalition Contract negotiations. To this end, MEBA and IOMMP and their appointed JNC members will not unilaterally make any bargaining proposals to the employer, will not sign or otherwise reach any agreement with the employer until both organizations have reached satisfactory agreements, and will not allow any of it’s members to cross or work behind the other organization’s picket lines.
B. Maritime Security Program: For vessels covered by the Maritime Security Program or its successor programs, MEBA and IOMMP shall cooperate and coordinate their efforts directly, and through the JOC, to retain to retain their respective positions aboard, and collective bargaining agreements covering, vessels currently in the program as well as new vessels transferred into the Maritime Security Program or its successor programs to replace each vessel. The JOC shall continue existing “pass through” agreements and/or develop new “pass through” agreements or “cross shipping” mechanisms to achieve this objective.
C. Non-Competition Agreement: Except as otherwise mutually agree and/or provided herein, no organization shall provide licensed personnel, licensed personnel labor rate bids and/or contract proposals to employers to fill positions held by the other organization.
D. Joint Organizing: The JOC shall recommend to the MEBA and IOMMP executive boards appropriate targets for joint campaigns. Upon approval of such joint organizing targets, the JOC, shall formulate and submit a detailed organizing strategy for approval by MEBA and IOMMP. Upon approval of a joint organizing target by MEBA and IOMMP, the JOC shall commence an organizing campaign directly on behalf of MEBA and IOMMP and MOLA.
E. Joint Services: The JOC shall review and make specific recommendations to the executive boards of MEBA and IOMMP regarding ways in which the two organizations may efficiently and economically streamline their administrative and support functions. As an example MEBA and IOMMP have pooled resources to ship jobs in Jacksonville, FL. Out of the same hiring hall. In Puerto Rico,. One hiring hall jointly ships night engineers and night mates. It is the desire of MEBA and IOMMP to provide single hiring halls in Norfolk and Tampa when conditions are appropriate. It is the desire of both parties to examine the possibilities of merging larger hiring halls taking into account ownership of the current halls and the convenience for the local membership. Other joint service reviews and recommendations may relate to the viability of sharing and/or combing other port offices, headquarters and training facilities.
F. Joint Administration: It is the desire of MEBA and IOMMP to reduce the cost of lobbying efforts by combining the resources of MIRAID (the legislative offices of IOMMP)and AMC (the MEBA legislative office) if permitted by the respective boards of these organizations. Additionally the JOC shall review and make specific recommendations to the executive boards of the MEBA and IOMMP regarding the feasibility of seeking joint administration of the two organization’s multiemployer medical, vacation and training plans. In authorizing such a review and report, however, neither MEBA or IOMMP endorse the combining or merger of any plan assets from any of the multiemployer plans related to their respective organizations. Furthermore, MEBA and IOMMP hereby pledge that no such combination or merger shall take place unless and until each organization’s members who are participants in such plans ratify such action in separate, secret ballot votes.
G. Shipping Rules: The JOC shall review and report to the executive boards of MEBA and IOMMP regarding the differences and similarities of the MEBA’s and IOMMP’s shipping rules. Such report shall also contain specific recommendations regarding ways which MEBA and IOMMP can better implement “cross shipping” and “pass through” agreements, perhaps through the establishment of a universal shipping card and the adoption of appropriate rules regarding the dispatch of jobs covered by a universal shipping card.
H. Drafting Committee: The JOC shall appoint a unification agreement drafting committee (“Drafting Committee”) consisting of not more than two representatives from each organization, which may include JOC Directors, to prepare a draft unification agreement. Said draft agreement shall be presented to the JOC within three months from the date of execution of this agreement. Upon presentation of the draft to the JOC, the JOC shall establish a further timeline for the revision or completion of the draft. Said draft shall be advisory only. Any subsequent unification agreement shall be subject to the ratification of each organization’s members in separate, secret ballot votes.
I. Other: The JOC shall be vested with and exercise such additional duties and responsibilities as may be jointly delegated by MEBA and IOMMP.
7. Mutual Cooperation Between MEBA and IOMMP: MEBA and IOMMP shall cooperation with one another to effectuate the terms of this Agreement, and hall continue to identify and develop mutually beneficial methods and strategies involving, for example, legislative and governmental policies, bidding for future government contracts, and jurisdictional divisions.
8. Amendment and Termination: This agreement may be amended only upon a majority vote of MEBA’s and IOMMP’s respective executive boards and written confirmation by both organizations. This agreement may be terminated by either party upon ninety (90) days advance written notice to the other.

AGREED and ACCEPTED this 14th day of December 2006

original document signed by Presaidents of MEBA and IOMMP

Read more!

TAXES AND YOUR HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS

TAXES AND YOUR HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS

The IRS Tax Codes regarding Health Care Premiums (Cafeteria Plans, Section 125) allows employers to set up a POP or “Premium only Payment” system that itemizes employer contributions to a Health Plan and lists them as non-taxable for the federal portion of your income.

Indeed this has been set up by various Maritime Unions that are now requiring active members to help fund their Medical Plans.


Many tax breaks have been put forth to make Health Care affordable for the employed, but what about the retired. Not only the retired who can take advantage of a sponsored Health Plan after their retirement, but all those retired millions on limited incomes that desperately need affordable health care.

Write your Senators and Congressmen and take up the fight for additional Tax Legislation in the upcoming year to benefit those of us who have paid our dues.

Below is the response I received from Senator Dianne Feinstein (Dem. California) to a letter about such benefits being initiated for retirees taking advantage of a sponsored Health Plan. I have yet to receive a response from Senator Barbara Boxer (Dem. California).


DIANNE FEINSTEIN

UNITED STATES SENATE

WASHINGTON, DC 20510—0504

November 27, 2006

Mr. Walter Fletcher

Dear Mr. Fletcher:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about health care for retirees. I appreciate the time you took to write and welcome the opportunity to respond.

I understand the escalating cost of some health insurance premiums continues to make obtaining health insurance difficult, if not impossible, for many Americans, especially those who anticipate receiving health benefits in their retirement from their employer. I agree with you that we must work to remove these barriers so that all Americans have access to health care services.

I voted in favor of the “Pension Protection Act of 2006”, which passed in the Senate on August 3, 2006, by a vote of 93-5. As you said, currently many employers offer their employees health insurance plans for which employees can use pre-tax dollars to pay premiums. I appreciate hearing your suggestion that this benefit should be extended to retirees participating in sponsored health plans and will examine the feasibility of this idea. I will keep your thoughts in mind as the senate considers tax legislation.
Again, thank you for writing. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841 or visit http://feinstein.senate.gov. Best regards.


Sincerely

Dianne Feinstein United States Senator

Read more!

McKAY BROTHERS ON THE HOT SEAT

McKAY BROTHERS ON THE HOT SEAT

Shades of DeFries, Dodson et all!!!!

As reported in the 11-24-06 MEBA TELEX TIMES

TRIAL OF AMO'S McKAY BROTHERS BEGINS

The federal racketeering trial of the McKay Brothers, Mike and Bobby, President and Secretary-Treasurer respectively, of the American Maritime Officers (AMO) kicked off this week on Monday, November 20, 2006. Mike McKay twice rigged union elections to ensure his victory and then used members' money as his personal piggy bank, a federal prosecutor told jurors Tuesday as reported by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. The accusations opened the Fort Lauderdale racketeering trial of AMO's Michael McKay, 59, and his brother Robert McKay, 56.


The McKay brothers are charged with a long list of crimes, including theft, fraud, and a conspiracy to cover up illegal campaign contributions from the union. If convicted, each could be sentenced to more than 30 years. The trial before U.S. District Judge James Cohn is expected to last about six weeks.

During the United States Government's opening statement, in addition to charges of doling out illegal campaign contributions and illegally rigging AMO union elections, Prosecutor Robert Lehner said Michael McKay used funds intended for the retirement, medical, training, and vacation benefits of union members to purchase cigars and hockey tickets and to pay for repairs to his personal boat. The brothers are also charged with obstructing justice.

With respect to the internal union election fraud, U.S. Prosecutor Lehner said Mike McKay tampered with the 1993 and 1996 elections by secretly replacing ballots cast for McKay's opponent with duplicate ballots marked for McKay.

U.S. Attorney Lehner, described several methods allegedly used by the McKays to evade rules barring unions from making political contributions, except through political action committees. As reported earlier, in exchange for making personal campaign contributions to federally elected officials, the indictment alleges the McKays would use the membership's dues money as reimbursements by paying illegal bonuses to the AMO employees and officials. According to prosecutors, the brothers pressured union employees and vendors to make donations to designated candidates for local and national office and then reimbursed the contributions out of union coffers. By reimbursing the contributors with union funds, the brothers were able to sidestep legal limits on the amount of money any entity can give to a campaign, prosecutors say. There is no indication the elected officials who accepted contributions did anything wrong. It would be inherently wrong and illegal to use a membership's hard earned dues money for such purposes.

The South Florida press reports that, during the trial, jurors will hear taped conversations secretly recorded by David Merriken, a former union official. As Director of the union's employee benefits plans, the U.S. Attorney General's office gave Merriken an immunity agreement in exchange for his cooperation. The government's case relies on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a statute carrying stiff penalties and often used to fight organized crime. Under the law, prosecutors present allegations they say show a pattern of criminal behavior. Prosecutors are expected to argue that the McKay brothers operated the AMO as a criminal enterprise.

David Merriken agreed to work undercover for the government when he realized he had become involved in corruption, Prosecutor Lehner said. According to the Sun-Sentinel, for 11 months David Merriken arrived for work at the American Maritime Officers union headquarters in Dania Beach with a wire taped to his chest and a tape recorder in his pocket. As a result of the wiretapping, there are some 200 tapes of recorded conversations he provided to U.S. prosecutors that will be key evidence in the federal racketeering trial. Reportedly, in 1995, McKay hired Merriken, a high school graduate with no college education, to work for the union's various employee benefit plans. A year later, Merriken became executive director of the benefit plans, overseeing funds worth roughly $1 billion and approximately 200 employees.

According to a separate civil lawsuit, Merriken became aware union officials were misusing money intended for employee benefits after he completed courses in business administration at Nova Southeastern University. Merriken brought to the McKay brothers attention that benefit funds were being misused by the AMO. The lawsuit infers that Merriken was then signaled out and harassed by the McKays. Merriken contacted Miami attorney Robert Josefsberg, who arranged a meeting with federal prosecutors, the suit states. In addition to the civil suit seeking unspecified financial damages, Merriken filed a separate suit against the union in June alleging fraud against the U.S. government.

In August and September 1999, while Merriken was secretly wearing a wire, union officials organized fundraisers for several elected officials in Florida, court documents state. Campaign finance records show that locally elected officials each walked away with about $4,000 in donations purportedly from union employees and their relatives. However, the money actually came from the benefits plans, according to court documents.

Read more!

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."

Read more!

AMO IS GETTING ALL THE JOBS

AMO REPORTING INCREASES IN SHIPBOARD JOBS

Latest updates from AMO regarding LNG, Patriot and other jobs that MEBA has let get away from them while we are in the court battle of our lives over the Contract that MEBA signed behind closed doors with the Inter Lake Steam Ship.



Ship acquisition means new jobs for AMO

Sealift Inc., which has collective bargaining agreements with American Maritime Officers, has acquired the tanker Overseas Harriet for service in PL-480 grain markets. The ship will be manned in all licensed positions by AMO upon its delivery in November 2006.

Sealift edged out a non-union ship operator for possession of the vessel, formerly operated by Maritime Overseas/OSG.

Sealift said successful PL-480 service by the Overseas Harriet could lead to the company’s acquisition of a second ship for the trade within a year.

“Our union welcomes the additional jobs represented by the Overseas Harriet,” said the national president of AMO. “We look forward to expanded participation in a critical program that is governed in part by U.S.-flag cargo preference requirements.”

A cargo preference law enacted as part of an agricultural funding measure in 1985 sets aside up to 75 percent of PL-480 exports and other food cargoes donated abroad by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for U.S.-flagged merchant vessels.

AMSEA wins LMSR court round

A federal judge has ruled that American Overseas Marine Corp., or AMSEA, can continue to operate nine large, medium-speed roll-on/roll-off ships for Military Sealift Command. AMSEA employs American Maritime Officers in the licensed positions on the LMSRs.

Ruling on a complaint brought by Patriot Contract Services, the ships’ previous operator, Judge Robert J. Doumar of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Norfolk said Patriot’s lawsuit seeking to overturn the LMSR charter award to AMSEA had “no foundation in law or fact.” Patriot Contract Services has collective bargaining agreements with the Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association and the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots.

Judge Doumar said AMSEA had not made misrepresentations in its LMSR operating proposal to MSC. “Patriot fails to offer any evidence from which a fact finder can conclude that AMSEA engaged in misconduct,” he said.

AMSEA was awarded the nine-ship LMSR charter in August 2004, but turnover from Patriot to AMSEA was delayed for more than a year by a protest filed by Patriot with the Government Accountability Office and by a requirement that the ships’ service during Operation Iraqi Freedom not be interrupted by a change in fleet management.

AMO returns to the LNG trades

American Maritime Officers has signed a collective bargaining agreement with Teekay Shipping, an international energy transportation company.

Teekay is a well-established operator of medium-sized tankers and provides LNG transportation services under long-term fixed-rate contracts to major energy and utility companies around the world.

Teekay currently has an active fleet of four LNG carriers and has nine more LNG carriers on order. The company has been seeking to integrate its LNG vessel operations with American officers licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard.

AMO members are the only U.S. licensed merchant marine officers with valid, recent LNG shipping experience and the union expects demand for their services to increase significantly as the international fleet of LNG carriers doubles--and the shortage of qualified LNG ship officers of every nationality deepens--by 2010.

Read more!

WE ARE STILL WAITING and WHY WAS IT SOLD???

WHY ARE WE STILL WAITING FOR THE OPENING OF THE NEW SAN FRANCISCO/BAY AREA UNION HALL ALONG WITH THE CLINIC

While we are still waiting for the opening of the new San Francisco Bay Area Union Hall and Clinic. Members are negotiating space with a shared Union Hall in San Francisco and Clinic appointments are on hold.

Here is a resolution that passed in Seattle and Norfolk last meeting week. Hopefully it will pass around country this next meeting week Nov. 6th through 10th. Maybe we'll finally get some answer about Oakland and San Francisco Halls.





Resolution – Full and Complete Disclosure of Sale of San Francisco Union Hall and Purchase of Replacement Hall in Oakland, Ca.

Whereas: Very little information has been made available to the membership concerning the sale of the San Francisco Union Hall
And

Whereas: This lack of information appears to be a deliberate attempt on the part of the Union Administration keep this information out of the hands of the membership
And

Whereas: The membership has a legal right to know how their assets are being managed and transacted
And

Whereas: The US Department of Labor Regulation; Union Officials: Guidelines for Fiduciary Responsibilities Under Section 501 of the Labor-Management Reporting
And Disclosure Act, 29 USC 501 imposes a fiduciary obligation on officers, agents, shop
stewards and other representatives of a labor organization:
(1) To hold its money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and its members;
(2) To manage, invest, and expend [the union's money and property] in accordance with its constitution and bylaws and any Resolutions of the governing bodies adopted there under;
(3) To refrain from dealing with such organization as an adverse party;
(4) To refrain from dealing with such organization in behalf of an adverse party in any matter connected with his duties;
(5) To refrain from holding or acquiring any pecuniary or personal interest which conflicts with the interests of such organization; and
(6) To account to the organization for any profit received by him in whatever capacity in connection with transactions conducted by him or under his direction on behalf of the organization.
And

Whereas: Section 4 of Article 6 of the By-Laws of District No. 1 PCD Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association AFL-CIO as amended through August 1, 2003
requires the District Secretary-Treasurer to “be responsible for the setting up and maintenance of sound accounting and bookkeeping systems; the setting up and maintenance of proper office and other administrative procedures; the proper collection,
safeguarding and expenditure of all District Funds”.

Resolution: Let it therefore be resolved that the Secretary-Treasurer of MEBA be required to provide full disclosure to the membership of the Terms and Conditions of the Sale of the San Francisco Hall ,Terms and Conditions of the Purchase of an Oakland
Property , and full disclosure of renovation specifications and costs to the Oakland Property: Beginning at the November 2006 union meetings and continuing until the new Oakland Hall is fully occupied and the final renovations have been completed the Secretary-Treasurer shall provide a written initial report and written monthly updates. The initial report will provide the following information but not limited to:

1. The Sales Contract and Closing documents including the full and final purchase price of the 340 Freemont Street property with all Terms and Conditions including the names and corporate affiliations of any Brokers and/or Agents participating in commissions of
such sale.
2. Provide a written account of where proceeds from the sale of the 340 Freemont Street property have been deposited and how designated

3. The Purchase Contract and Closing documents including the full and final purchase price of the 548 20th Street property with all Terms and Conditions including the names and corporate affiliations of any Brokers and/or Agents participating in commissions of such sale.

4. Provide full information on the financing of the 548 20th Street property

5. Provide the renovation contract details including full specifications and scope of work, costs and contractor’s bids, and the renovation contractor(s) name(s) for the work being done on the Oakland property

6. Provide a monthly written account of work performed, costs incurred and updates on the expected occupancy date of the Oakland property
30 October, 2006 17:05

Read more!

NEW PENSION LAWS AND WILL THEY EFFECT YOU

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Pension Laws and their effect on MEBA retireee. Where was your Union Representation and Political Action when this bill was passed?

Pension Law Shrinks
Lump-Sum Payouts



Changes in Defined-Benefit Plans
Affect Many Highly-Paid Workers;
Making Do With $200,000 Less

By THEO FRANCIS
October 25, 2006; Page D1

When Larry Korwatch began planning his retirement last winter after three decades as a ship's engineer, his pension-plan administrator told him he could expect to walk away with a lump-sum payment of about $1.3 million.

That was before Congress passed sweeping pension-reform legislation in August. Now, Mr. Korwatch has learned that his retirement payout will be cut by about $200,000.

The reason: The new pension law changes the way companies calculate how much to pay retirees who choose to take their pensions in a single payout. Although many retirees opt to receive their pensions as a monthly check, and therefore aren't affected by the changes, the new legislation is expected to reduce the pensions of millions of Americans as they retire in coming years.

SMALLER NEST EGG

A recent pension law is hurting some retirees.

• Rule changes cut payments to workers who take their pension as a lump sum.

• An apparent oversight may have made cuts for higher-paid workers retroactive to January.

• Pensions paid monthly aren't affected by the changes.


Retirement advisers are crying foul, especially because one change introduced by the new law is retroactive to the beginning of 2006 and is affecting people who have already retired or plan to do so soon. "You can't slice and dice a man's nest-egg the year he retires without advance notice," says Joe Clark, an Anderson, Ind., financial adviser with a client whose lump-sum pension was reduced by the change.

The changes affect so-called defined-benefit pension plans, which traditionally provide a monthly payment for life in retirement, based on the retiree's pay and years of service. Some 22 million Americans working at private-sector companies participate in defined-benefit pension plans, about half of whom have the option to take the benefit as a lump-sum payment. Pension experts say most do so, though figures aren't available.

Employees can avoid the pitfalls of the new law by taking their pension as a lifetime stream of paychecks, rather than a lump sum. Many retirement experts recommend that as the safest alternative because it doesn't leave retirees subject to the risk that their investments will fare poorly or that they will spend their assets before their deaths. But this approach can backfire if an employer is on shaky financial ground. Some companies, notably in the airline and steel industries, have filed for bankruptcy in recent years and handed over their pension plans to the federal government, resulting in smaller payouts to some employees.

The latest pension changes come as defined-benefit plans have come under pressure. Several companies have announced plans to freeze their pensions this year, including Verizon Communications Inc. and International Business Machines Corp., preventing employees from earning new benefits. Meanwhile, many employers increasingly emphasize retirement savings plans, such as 401(k)s, in which employees can save and defer income taxes on some of their pay. Many employers contribute to these accounts as well.

The pension law made two changes that effectively reduce payouts when a retiree takes his pension as a lump sum. Companies calculate this by taking the monthly payment the retiree is entitled to and then figuring how much this is worth as a lump sum in today's dollars, making certain assumptions about life spans and future investment returns.

Under the new law, companies starting in 2008 will be able to assume a higher investment return, using a corporate-bond interest rate instead of the lower Treasury-bond rate previously used. This change produces a smaller lump sum payment, because the higher rate represents the return an employee would have to earn to generate the same retirement income as if he were receiving the pension as a monthly paycheck.

This change will be phased in gradually over five years, and people who retire in the next year will see little impact on their payout. "It's going to mean lump sums are smaller for everybody," says David Certner, director of legislative policy for AARP, the seniors advocacy group.

But another change in the pension law has already begun hitting employees, especially highly paid professionals, who have recently retired or plan to retire soon. This change stems from a calculation companies must make that places a cap on the maximum amount a retiree can receive when it is converted to a lump sum. Congress legislates the maximum size of pension payouts because contributing to the plans offers employers certain tax advantages.

For 2006, the biggest annual pension a person age 62 to 65 is allowed to receive from a taxpayer-subsidized plan is $175,000. This cap, which is lower for younger pensioners, increases each year to account for inflation.

The change introduced by Congress affects how much this capped annual amount is worth when companies convert it into a lump sum. In calculating this sum, the new law requires companies to use a higher interest rate -- 5.5%, up from a variable rate that was below 5% most of this year -- as the assumed rate of return, which effectively lowers the maximum allowed lump-sum payment.

That's what caused Mr. Korwatch's pension to shrink to $1.1 million. "It's frustrating," he says about the cut in his expected payout. A co-worker "only has 21 years with the union, and he's getting the same amount as me."

Mr. Korwatch says he's considering delaying his retirement beyond his planned departure next month, when he turns 51, in order to build up a bigger pension. But after some 30 years working at sea in an arduous profession, the Alamo, Calif., resident had been looking forward to retiring.

The rule change won't affect many top corporate executives, because they typically benefit from "supplemental" pensions that make up for any benefits lost to the tax-law cap.

Retirement-industry officials have raised concerns that the rule change affecting pension caps was made retroactive to Jan. 1, which means that people who already took lump-sum payments this year could be asked to return some of the money they received.

"It's terrible," says Ron Gebhardtsbauer, senior pension fellow for the American Academy of Actuaries, a trade association. "We're all scratching our heads and saying, 'You can't do that.' " Mr. Gebhardtsbauer says the Jan. 1 date appears to have been written into the legislation last year, on the assumption that the measure would pass by the end of 2005 or soon after.

Political squabbling delayed passage of the pension bill another eight months, but the date wasn't changed. Pension trade groups have asked Congress to change the effective date for the provision at the earliest to Aug. 17, the day the law was signed.

Mr. Korwatch's pension plan intends to wait for government guidance or corrective legislation before deciding whether to seek money back from those who retired earlier this year, says Allen Szymczak, who administers the plan for the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association. Whatever happens, "We have to do it by the law," Mr. Szymczak says.

Another complication: Some retirees whose lump sums are capped may be entitled to get some of the forgone benefits back as an annuity, which is paid as a stream of income, in addition to the lump sum, several pension experts say. However, that could depend on the terms of the plan, they say. Mr. Szymczak says the consultants for his union's plan haven't raised this issue.

Read more!

UNION ELECTIONS AND THE IMPACT ON MEBA

Union elections and impact on MEBA

The following is an article from Trade Winds regarding the upcoming AMO election. The impact this will have on MEBA and our long tern disputes with AMO is unknown. In light of this one must also look at the upcoming MEBA elections. The players are on the move. The wholesale retirement/resignation of elected officials before the completion of their terms will allow the current Union Leadership to stack the deck not only with appointed replacements at the highest positions but also on the Board of Trustees which control every aspect of our Plans.

While this practice has historical prescient going back to the days of Cahloun that does not make it right. These Officials were elected by the membership to represent them for the entire duration of their tenure. To not do so is a violation of their fiduciary duty to the Membership.



Subject: Trade Winds Weekly-RE: AMO Election

Trial to overlap union election.

A US trial could have a marked effect on voting for union leadership candidates.
A potentially historic election is underway at the largest union for US-flag licensed seafarers, even as its two top leaders are set to go on trial.

The 4,000-strong American Maritime Officers (AMO) has been headed by one family for nearly 50 years. But legal troubles and a diverse field of challengers could put the Miami-headquartered union on a new course.

On 6 November, the two top incumbents, long-serving president Michael McKay and his brother, Secretary-treasurer Robert McKay, will go on trial before a federal jury, over a year after being indicted on racketeering and conspiracy charges. The previous president, their father Raymond McKay, led the AMO and its predecessor organizations from 1957 until his death in 1993.

Voting will conclude 1 December, dramatically coinciding with the McKays' trial on charges that include among other things tampering with earlier AMO elections.
No fewer than six candidates are running for the presidential spot, among 14 positions up for election. Ballots have been mailed out and several members Trade Winds have spoken with say they have already marked and returned theirs.
Besides a slate allied with the McKays, the best-organized contenders may be a slate of nine qualified nominees associated with the reformist AMO Membership Committee (AMC), headed by Totem Ocean Master Jack Hearn ( see story below ).

One interesting latecomer, Great Lakes Mate Rob Woodman, apparently advocates acquiring control of one or more ship owning companies by leveraging union pension funds. Woodman was involved with an unsuccessful attempt at an employee buyout of Ogle bay Norton on that basis.

At least three incumbent AMO leaders will be elected unopposed. These include national vice-president at large Edward Kelly, the AMO's head Washington lobbyist. The AMO leader probably best known to US-flag ship-owners, head contract negotiator Tom Bethel, is among those who face a challenge.

It would be illegal for employers to support one side or the other in such an election. And indeed, some AMO-organized shipowners Trade Winds has spoken with say they are keeping hands off and would be foolish not to do so. Some operators have privately expressed interest in the outcome, fearing in some cases that seagoing challengers to the McKays may be overly optimistic about how well they can run a quasi-corporate employee organization.

Some AMO members who support opposition candidates have told Trade Winds the election could be influenced by fear of reprisals by the current leadership. Many are said to expect that their voting preferences will become known to the incumbent leadership and affect their prospects for employment. (In the US maritime industry, most crewing decisions are in the hands of the labor unions rather than the employers, the exception being top spots like ships' masters, who are often permanently employed by a company.)

However, during the run-up to the election, the AMO has made a significant change to the way it offers jobs on ships to its members.

Previously, the AMO has phoned eligible members to inform them that they are next in line for an opening with an AMO-organized ship-owner. AMO's competitor unions, Masters, Mates&Pilots (MM&P) and Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association (Meba), use a more old-fashioned but some say more transparent method for assigning jobs, the traditional union hiring hall.

Now, however, the AMO has started a dispatching website where members can see where they stand in the queue for new jobs.

By Bob Rust Stamford
published: 20 October 2006

Read more!

AMO WINS AGAIN PART 2

AMO WINS AGAIN PART 2

AMO scores significant win as federal judge sends case against MEBA back to Ohio court
A civil suit brought by American Maritime Officers against the Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association and others advanced significantly Aug. 25 when a federal judge ordered that the case be heard in state court in Ohio, where it was filed by AMO in December 2005.

Ruling in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Western Division, U.S. District Judge David A. Katz granted a motion by AMO to send the case back to the state court. MEBA had argued that federal jurisdiction applied under a 1947 federal labor law, but Judge Katz disagreed.

Judge Katz also denied a motion by MEBA and its co-defendants -- including the MEBA benefit funds and top MEBA officials -- to dismiss the claims made by AMO. MEBA had argued that the claims were “pre-empted” under separate federal statutes.

The case brought by AMO late last year alleged “tortious interference” by MEBA and its co-defendants with a valid collective bargaining agreement between AMO and the Ohio-based Interlake Steamship Co. in July 2003. MEBA and Interlake -- which operates seven self-unloading U.S.-flagged Great Lakes bulk carriers -- signed a 10-year contract in secrecy six days before the expiration of the three-year AMO-Interlake collective bargaining agreement.

In its arguments in the U.S. District Court, MEBA said determining whether contract “interference” occurred in violation of Ohio law was a matter of interpretation of the AMO-Interlake collective bargaining agreement, but Judge Katz did not accept that argument.

“Here, defendant (MEBA) is a third-party union accused of the state law tort of interference with contract,” Judge Katz wrote. “While the existence of the relationship between AMO and Interlake, the employer, arose out a collective bargaining agreement, no interpretation of that contract is necessary to the determination of violation of state law, but only the mere existence of the contract.

“In fact, an arbitrator has found that Interlake breached its duty under the collective bargaining agreement by failing to bargain in good faith, and that decision was recently upheld by Chief Judge James G. Carr in Interlake v. American Maritime Officers Union,” Judge Katz continued. “The arbitrator’s decision that Interlake violated the recognition and non-coercion provisions of its contract with AMO through its actions with MEBA stands as controlling authority on the issue of breach of contract. Therefore, the issue before this court or the Court of Common Pleas (in Ohio) involves not interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, but the relationship between Interlake and AMO and whether any action by MEBA constituted a tort for which AMO may seek redress under Ohio law.”

The suit was brought by AMO in the Lucas County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas in Toledo, where AMO has its Great Lakes base. The suit named the Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association, MEBA President Ron Davis, MEBA Vice President Don Keefe, the MEBA Medical and Benefits Plan, the MEBA Vacation Plan, the MEBA Training Plan, the MEBA 401(k) Plan and the MEBA Pension Trust as defendants.

AMO asked for a jury trial and a minimum of $60 million in “direct and consequential” damages and $280 million in punitive damages. AMO also asked for payment of “reasonable” attorneys’ fees and court costs by the defendants and “any further relief in law or equity to which plaintiff (AMO) is entitled.”

Read more!

AMO WINS AGAIN

AMO wins another round in Interlake contract dispute.


Judge upholds arbitrator's penalties for violation of collective
bargaining agreement American Maritime Officers prevailed in federal
court July 5 when a judge refused to overturn a contract arbitrator's
penalties against Interlake Steamship Co. for violations of its
collective bargaining agreement with AMO three years ago.


The ruling from Judge James G. Carr of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio (Western Division) meant Interlake
must compensate AMO and approximately 17 AMO members for losses
resulting from the contract violations, which included the signing by
Interlake of a controversial 10-year contract with the Marine Engineers'
Beneficial Association while the company's three-year agreement with AMO
was still in effect. The Interlake-MEBA contract was signed on July 25,
2003, six days before the expiration of the AMO-Interlake agreement.

Arbitrator Douglas E. Ray imposed the penalties -- 17 months' back wages
for each of the 17 individual AMO members and attorneys' fees for the
union--after four days of hearings on the AMO-Interlake contract dispute
between September 2004 and December 2004.

In the court-ordered arbitration sought by AMO, Ray concluded that
Interlake had violated its agreement with AMO not only by signing the
contract with MEBA while the AMO-Interlake agreement was valid, but by
helping MEBA officials and representatives coerce vessel officers in the
Interlake fleet of self-unloading Great Lakes bulk carriers into MEBA
membership.

Interlake sued in the Northern District, arguing that Ray had exceeded
his authority under the AMO-Interlake agreement and asking the court to
vacate the damage awards. AMO countered with a motion for summary
judgment sustaining the penalties.

In his July 5 decision in the case brought by Interlake, Judge Carr
denied the company's request and granted AMO's motion. "Both of the
arbitrator's awards are valid," Judge Carr wrote. "He was within his
authority to determine that substantial back pay and attorneys' fees
were proper remedies under the (AMO-Interlake) agreement. This court,
accordingly, will not disturb that determination."

Judge Carr noted that, in the court case, Interlake had challenged "only
the arbitrator's specific remedies, not the underlying merits of his
decision."

He said the courts defer generally to arbitrators in such disputes.
Damage awards are vacated rarely because arbitrators almost always rely
exclusively on contract language that both parties had agreed to.

In the Interlake-AMO case, there was "no question" that the arbitrator's
understanding of the "remedies" clause in the AMO-Interlake Steamship
Co. collective bargaining agreement "was legally plausible."

The AMO-Interlake-MEBA dispute arose as AMO attempted to negotiate a
successor to the three-year collective bargaining agreement that expired
at midnight on July 31, 2003. AMO and the company had met several times
on the issue in 2002 and 2003.

Meanwhile, AMO reached new agreements with two other U.S.-flagged Great
Lakes bulk vessel operators, but Interlake did not want to accept the
uniform economic terms of those agreements and held out for concessions
from AMO.

In May 2003, AMO -- acting in compliance with the AMO-Interlake
agreement -- notified the company that the existing agreement would
expire as scheduled at midnight on July 31 and proposed additional talks
possibly leading to a successor agreement.

At the time, Interlake executives were meeting secretly with MEBA
officials, discussing a possible Interlake-MEBA contract to replace the
AMO-Interlake agreement. Testimony provided during the arbitration
confirmed that Jerome E. "Jerry" Joseph, a former AMO national executive
vice president, had arranged the surreptitious talks between Interlake
and MEBA. Joseph, who had been defeated in his bid for the AMO
presidency in the AMO election of officers in 2001, became a paid
consultant to MEBA in April 2002.

On July 25, 2003, Interlake executives and MEBA officials and
representatives gathered at the home of Interlake Chairman James Barker
in Michigan, where Interlake Vice President Bob Dorn and MEBA President
Ron Davis signed the 10-year contract that has since been characterized
by AMO as "collusive" and "cut-rate." The contract was signed without
the knowledge of the AMO members working as vessel officers in the
Interlake fleet.

In the week that followed the signing of the Interlake-MEBA contract,
Interlake executives and MEBA officials and representatives -- including
Joseph, the former AMO official -- boarded the company's seven active
vessels, which had clustered on company orders at the remote anchorage
of DeTour off the coast of Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

Aboard the vessels, the Interlake executives and MEBA officials and
representatives announced the Interlake-MEBA contract to the engineers
and mates, who were told they would have to join MEBA by Aug. 1, 2003 --
the effective date of the Interlake-MEBA contract -- or leave the
vessels and lose their jobs. The fleet's stewards, who had been covered
by the AMO-Interlake collective bargaining agreement, were told that had
been left out of the MEBA bargaining unit -- as were the fleet's
captains, who had been covered for benefit purposes by the AMO-Interlake
agreement. The Interlake engineers and mates were denied a vote for
representation by MEBA and were not allowed to vote to ratify or reject
the Interlake-MEBA contract.

On July 28, 2003, AMO filed a class action grievance on behalf of the
Interlake engineers and mates who had left the vessels rather than
accept MEBA membership and what one AMO member called the "drastically
inferior" economic terms of the Interlake-MEBA contract.

Interlake refused arbitration of some issues in the dispute. But Judge
Carr, responding to a motion by AMO, ordered the company to "participate
forthwith in arbitration of all issues" raised by AMO in its class
action grievance.

In his May 2005 decision in the case, Ray concluded that Interlake had
failed to recognize AMO as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the Interlake vessel officers as required in Article I, Section 2 of the
AMO-Interlake agreement.

"The arbitrator finds ... that the terms 'recognizes' and 'exclusive
bargaining agency' in Article 1, Section 2 are violated where, during
the term of the agreement, the employer engages in bargaining with
another labor organization concerning rates of pay and terms and
conditions of employment for covered officers," Ray wrote.

Ray said Interlake "did compel" the fleet's engineers and mates into
MEBA membership "as a condition of keeping their jobs." He added; "By
breaching its promise of exclusive recognition during the term of the
(AMO-Interlake) agreement, by bringing representatives of a rival union
on board employer vessels, and by allowing such rival to distribute AMO
resignation forms and under apparent sponsorship of the company during
the term of the (AMO-Interlake) agreement, the employer interfered with
the right of covered officers to continue to be members of AMO."

Editor's Note: The three-year AMO-Interlake collective bargaining
agreement and the 10-year Interlake-MEBA contract are available to all
AMO members for independent review and comparison. Interested AMO
members are asked to contact AMO at its Great Lakes base in Toledo.

Read more!

THE DUST HAS FINALLY SETTLED

The Dust Has Finally Settled

Now that the dust has finally settled and the full implementation of Trustee Modifications to the Medical Plan come into full effect on July 1, 2006 with the 1% premium to the active members. Lets look at what we really got.

I agree that drastic changes were necessary to get the Plan on sound footing to insure its longevity and reserve stability. We have gotten in return higher co-pays linked to lower percentage coverage that end up with the participant paying 45% + or - of an routine visit expense. If your visit is $60 dollars and your co-pay is $20 dollars then the Plan pays 80% of $40 dollars or $32 dollars. The Plan has paid 54% of the bill. So for routine visits the Plan has basically cut it’s burden in half.This is where the Plan will make it's most savings.

Now lets look at Blue Shield as an Administrator of the Plan.

When you present your Insurance Card to your Provider for coverage do you know what happens after that? The claim goes to a regional Blue Shield address for direct forwarding to a Blue Shield Center for processing and not to MEBA. The Plans office does not see it until it is all over and done with. Then they get basically the same Explanation of Benefits that we receive in the mail and then process a check to the Provider and a bill for the remainder to you.

Each State has their own Regional Center, some have two. California for instance has one in Los Angeles for the southern half of the state and another in Red Bluff for the northern half. Now the kink in the system is that if you use a Provider that is not in any PPO or HMO system but is a cash only Provider you would naturally think to just get the bill and send it to MEBA Plans in Baltimore.
Don’t do it. Call the Plans Office and talk to Judy, Janice or Susan and get the Blue Shield mailing center closest to you and mail the bill along with an enlarged copy of both sides of the Medical Card along with the entire Card ID number written on the bill. If you just send it to the Plans office they have to submit it to Blue Shield in Maryland.

The difficulty arises in that the Plans office does not know anything about your claim until Blue Shield is done with it and sends the results to them. This is accomplished by snail mail. When they get the results in the mail then it is entered into the MEBA System. Then and only then can the ladies like Judy, Janice or Susan check if your claim is in the system. The Plans Office has no direct data link to Blue Shield.

How do I know all this? Judy , Janice and Susan have been working diligently for two months for me to get a claim settled from April 6, 2006 that I mistakenly sent directly to MEBA because I was not aware of the State mailing list.

This is a far cry from the days when it was done in house with an Explanation of Benefits and reimbursement within 2 weeks and when the Plan had triple the number of participants and Medical billing Personel.

Read more!

THE LATEST IN MEBA MEDICAL PLAN FUNDING

THE LATEST IN MEBA MEDICAL PLAN FUNDING

A document from the Plans Administrator dated 4-24-06 was mailed out to Active Participants of the Medical Plan and posted on the MEBA PLANS Website on 4-28-06 under “What’s New”. The document explains the latest changes to the MEBA Medical Plan Funding fiasco facing the Trustees.


The delay in notifying the Membership of these changes, which were decided upon at the February Trustees Meeting, is probably due to logistics of legal implementation and timing of the changes as it affects Company payroll figures.

While the document is pretty self explanatory it leaves many questions regarding the issue of Medical Plan funding in general.

1. If issued on 4-24-06 why was this not posted in the Telex Times to notify our Brothers out at sea? There have been three issues of the Telex Times issued since this came from the Plans Office yet no mention of Plan changes.

2. The 1% contribution rate established for active participants reinforces the view that the current contract contribution rates gained by the Union Collective Bargaining Group are not adequate to fund the Plan. Remember that the Union Negotiators and Officials continually assured us that the contracted rates would solidify the Plan well into the future for active and retired members. Yet the retirees were hit with large increases in their contribution rates. The efforts of active members and retirees are reflected in the February changes.

3. Next I refer you to the Blog entitled “Fact or Fiction-or Is It Election Time” that was posted 3-28-06. This Blog details the information sent out by MEBA TEAM II in their re-election literature prior to the ‘04 election and their representation of the Medical Plan at that time. Their representation of the Plan was a vital election Platform for MEBA TEAM II.




To: Active Employees/Participants in the MEBA Medical and Benefits Plan
From: Allen R. Szymczak, Administrator
Date: April 24, 2006
Re: Changes Relating to Active Employees/Participants and Pensioners

As we previously informed you, rapidly rising health care costs have seriously hurt virtually every medical plan in the country. The MEBA Medical and Benefits Plan (‘Plan”) has suffered the terrible impact of this nation-wide health care crisis as well. The Plan’s Board of Trustees has taken significant measures to protect the Plan’s financial reserves while continuing to provide outstanding health care coverage for the Plan’s active and retired Participants and their families. In order to accomplish this critically important objective, the Trustees implemented several important changes at their October, 2005 meeting that affected both retired and active Plan Participants and their families. Those changes were reported in a Notice sent out to all Plan Participants in October, 2005.

A large number of active and retired Plan Participants provided valuable and well-received input regarding the changes that were implemented in October, 2005. The active Participants have understood and accepted the overall need to make those changes, but they, like many of the Plan’s retired Participants, were concerned about certain changes that affected only the retirees and their families. Recognizing that they themselves will one day be MEBA retirees and that they will want MEBA retiree benefits for themselves and their families, many of the active Participants expressed their willingness to pay medical contributions out of their paychecks in order to partially offset the financial impact of the recent changes affecting MEBA retirees.

In response to those comments and suggestions, the Board of Trustees modified and rescinded certain of the financial obligations that were imposed upon the retirees in October, 2005, and have now also implemented additional changes that affect the active Participants and their dependents. The Board of Trustees unanimously adopted these changes, which are explained below, and believes that these changes accommodate the needs of all the Plan’s Participants, both active and retired, in such a way that it can still accomplish its fundamental objective of ensuring the long-term survival and financial well-being of the Plan.

Changes Affecting Active Participants and their Dependents

1. Mandatory Employee Contribution, effective July 1, 2006.
Effective July 1, 2006, all Active Employees/Participants will be required to contribute to the Plan 1% of their gross IRS Form W-2 wages earned while working in covered employment This mandatory contribution will also apply to all vacation pay earned while working in covered employment on and after July 1, 2006. Except as set forth herein, these contributions will be deducted directly from your paycheck by your employer and, where applicable, the MEBA Vacation Plan, commencing on and after July 1, 2006. For vacation benefits payable by the MEBA Vacation such deductions will begin with payments made by the Vacation Plan for vacation earned on and after July 1, 2006. Finally, these mandatory contributions will be deducted “pro-tax” from your gross pay, such that they will not be subject to federal withholding taxes.

2. Retiree Medical Eligibility Rule of 75, effective January 1, 2011.

A. General Rule: Effective January 1, 2011, except as set forth in Section 2.C, below, in order to be eligible for retiree medical benefits from the Plan, a Pensioner must have accumulated a combination of age and Pension Credit equal to at least 75. For example, a Pensioner who on January 1, 2011 is 50 years old and has 25 years of Pension Credit satisfies this eligibility “Rule of 75.” As such, he and his dependents would be immediately eligible for retiree medical benefits from the Plan. A Pensioner who, on January 1, 2011, is 50 years old but has 20 years of Pension Credit will not satisfy this eligibility Rule of 75; therefore be and his Dependents will not immediately eligible for retiree medical benefits.

B. Deferred Eligibility: If this Rule of 75 is not met at the time of retirement, the Pensioner and his Dependents will not be immediately eligible for medical coverage, but will be allowed to participate in the Medical Plan when the Pensioner meets the Rule of 75, provided be complies with the following conditions:

(1)Hold-Down Contribution: To preserve the right to come into the Plan as a Pensioner when the “Rule of 75” is met, the Pensioner will be required to pay a nominal contribution of $20 per month. During this period of time, the Pensioner and any Eligible Dependents will be allowed to use the Diagnostic Centers. If a Pensioner who does not meet the “Rule of 75” chooses COBRA Continuation Coverage to maintain Active coverage, however, the $20 contribution will be waived until such time as the COBRA Continuation Period ends or the Pensioner meets the “Rule of 75,” whichever occurs first

(2)Election Period: Pensioners who attain the Rule of 75 after retirement must immediately begin participation in the Plan as a Pensioner or they will forego their right to participate forever.

C. Disability Pensioners: Disability Pensioners will be allowed to Participate in the Medical Plan without meeting the Rule of 75.

Recent Changes Affecting Retirees And Their Dependents

1. Effective retroactive to February 1,2006, the Pensioner Medical Contribution requirement for non-Medicare eligible Pensioners with dependents has been changed to 6% of their monthly pension (calculated as a straight life annuity) or $500.00, whichever is greater. This change reduces the $700 Pensioner-With Dependents Contribution obligation that had been implemented at the October, 2005 meeting.

2. Effective February 1,2006, all non-Medicare Pensioners may choose to drop dependent coverage. Such dropped dependent coverage may be reinstated on a one-time basis, provided that proof of other insurance coverage for such dependent(s) while not covered by the Plan is provided to the Plan Office within 30 days of the termination of such other coverage, If such proof is not provided, the dropped dependent coverage cannot be reinstated.

3. Effective retroactive to February 1,2006, the $800 Pensioner Medical Contribution cap that was applicable to both Medicare and non-Medicare eligible Pensioners is eliminated. The $800 cap had been implemented at the October, 2005 meeting.

4. The annual Cost-of-Living Increases applicable to the minimum Pensioner Medical Contribution Rate that were to go into effect beginning July 1,2008 have been eliminated. This COLA provision bad been implemented at the October, 2005 meeting.


If you have any questions, please contact the Plan Office at (410) 547-9111 or (800) 811-6322 and ask for the Member Services Department.

Read more!

2006 FINANCIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT

2006 FINANCIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT

MEBA Headquarters
Washington, D.C
April 24 to April 26, 2006

Dear Brothers and Sisters.

The elected 2006 Financial Committee convened at the MEBA Headquarters from April 24 through April 26, 2006, to review the finances of the MEBA District l-PCD in accordance with the bylaws detailed in Article 6. Section 9(d).

The following elected members were in attendance:

Charles Feist, New Orleans (Chairman)
Dominic Walsh, Baltimore
Robert Fauveil, Houston
Gerald Bellows. San Francisco
Larry Brown, Seattle
Joseph McElhinney, New York Alternate)


The FRC reviewed the previous three years FRC reports. Many of the recommendations of these reports have been implemented. The 2005 LM-2 Report and the audited financial statement were also made available and examined. The audit was conducted by the firm of Buchbinder, Tunick & Company, LLP, for the Independent Auditor Report. The report was issued without qualifications as a fair representation of the Union’s financial situation. A status of “Unqualified Auditors Opinion” was issued.

MEBA Net Worth and Budget Projections

The Revenues of $10,586,436 and Expenses of $10,196,716 result in the Union finishing the year in the “black” with $389,720. This increase includes a one time windfall of $314,972 in Sealand/Crowley interest.
The Union Net Assets at the end of 2005 are reported as $12,521,524. This figure is an increase from $12,057,685 from the previous year.
These figures are based on Total Assets reported of $17,057,099 with Total Liabilities reported of $4,535,575 at the end of 2005.

The 2306 Budget Projections are as follows:
Estimated Revenue: $10.283,698
Estimated Expenses: $10.283,698

In 2005, $3.9 million in vacation dues were projected, with an actual amount of $3.4 million received. For the year 2006, a figure of $3.6 million is used for budget projections.

The Sale of the San Francisco Union Hall

The process of the sale of the San Francisco Hall and subsequent move to a new hall in Oakland continued in 2005.
A business loan of $2.8 million was obtained. $1.7 million was used for the purchase of the Oakland hail. $960,141 was used to pay off the New Jersey Hall. which is now owned by the MEBA. This transpired as follows:
On March 24, 2005, the District refinanced this loan (New Jersey Hall) with a term loan single payment for $2.8 million. This loan is due in full when the District obtains a mortgage loan secured by the Oakland property, the date the District sells its Union hall in San Francisco, CA or May 24, 2010. This loan bears interest at 1.5% plus LIBOR and the interest is due monthly and is secured by a first priority security interest in all securities, financial assets and other investment property of the District.
There are additional restrictions in this loan including debt service coverage and the making of loans and advances. Also, the District pledges 24 months of debt service reserve in the amount of $168,000 of side collateral for this loan.
The sale of the San Francisco Hall is scheduled to be finalized this summer. The sale price has not been determined at this time, due to San Francisco Planning Commission regulations which may lead to a higher sale price.
The minimum amount for the sale of this Hall should not be lower than $4.8 million, with the possibility of $6.8 to $7 million, pending approval of the building plans by the City Planning Commission.

Joint Employment Committee

The sum of $3,605.581 was disbursed from the JEC Fund to the MEBA. This fund was
depleted approximately $2.6 million for the purpose of running the union halls.
The estimated contributions from contractual negotiations were close to $1 million.
The remaining principal in the JEC fund is just under $9 million.

Summary

The FRC has determined that the union is operating on solid financial footing. The expenses are reasonable considering projected revenues and recent history of expenses.

FRC Recommendations

1)All members are encouraged to Continue contributions to the Political Action Fund. These contributions will greatly assist in organizing efforts and obtaining new work. Current income is about half of what is necessary for effective political action.

2)The FRC recommends that the union keep in mind the impending higher costs of travel and plan accordingly considering the necessity of early booking, where possible. This includes electing the FRC one month earlier to book travel at lower rates. The use of conference calls should be considered as an alternative to frequent travel for face to face meetings. Travel expenses should be looked at for savings.

3)The FRC realizes the increasing costs of operating union halls, which are primarily funded through the JEC. With this is mind, all future negotiating on contracts must address contributions which will cover these expenses without reducing the principal of the JEC. The union has done a commendable job in the recent past in obtaining funding for this.

4)The intent of the DEC is to set aside $250,000 of the income from the sale of the San Francisco Hall for the Good & Welfare Fund and $250,000 for a Strike Fund. It is recommended that these funds be monitored by the FRC during the annual reviews.

DEC Compensation

By a vote of 5-0, the FRC has voted to increase the wages of the DEC (President, Secretary-Treasurer, and three Vice-Presidents) by 3%.


The FRC would like to extend many thanks for the following people for their support and efforts with this committee: Ann Holmes, Eric Pittman. William Doyle. Marco Cannistraro, Joe Musher, and all Headquarters Staff.

Fraternally Submitted:

Signed and dated by FRC Committee Members and Alternate

Read more!

LOSS OF JOBS ON THE HORIZON

LOSS OF JOBS ON THE HORIZON

This is brought to your attention to emphasize that less jobs equate to less contributions. Less contributions from existing inadequate contracts equate to changes in benefits as Unions struggle to maintain a sound financial footing not only in it's operating expenses but also in it's PLANS

Ship Operators Covet Subsidies as RRF Cuts Confirmed

U.S. flag ship owners and operators have been put on notice by the U.S. government that reductions to the Ready Reserve Fleet (RRF) will be significantly larger than previously thought.


Eight companies now under contract to operate ships are facing the possibility of cancellation of as much as half of the existing contracts by the end of fiscal year 2007.

A total of 10 vessels are scheduled for removal from the RRF during this fiscal year. The need to replace 300,000 square feet of capacity that will depart from the RRF roughly coincides with a request for information issued to U.S.-flag ship owners earlier this month by MARAD). U.S. military planners constantly monitor logistics requirements and the assets needed to support those missions. Programs such at the RRF, Military Sealift command (MSC), and the ships of the Maritime Security Program (MSP) make up the maritime component of those contingencies.

Any reduction in RRF numbers or capabilities will ultimately require probing the commercial market for replacement tonnage. Ship owners hope that this could translate into still more ship subsidies which would allow operators to keep ships under the U.S. Flag. The MSP program, consisting of 60 ships, each receiving a $2.6 million annual operating subsidy, allows the United States to keep private vessels with military value on retainer for emergency call-up.

TransCom has not yet disclosed which vessel types or operators might be slated for elimination, but MARAD has issued recent requests for information from U.S. commercial operators for RO-RO tonnage.

The May 3 issue of the Federal Register (Vol. 71, No. 85) also provides notice of open season for enrollment in the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA). U.S. Flag vessels not currently enrolled in the program are invited to participate, with applications due no later than May 31, 2006. VISA provides for “the phased availability of participants’ shipping services/systems to meet contingency requirements” through contractual arrangements between the government and participants. In exchange, VISA participants receive “priority consideration” for the award of DOD peacetime cargo.

Read more!

AMO ELECTIONS, TRIALS AND INFORMANTS

AMO ELECTIONS, TRIALS AND INFORMANTS

In an effort to keep concerned parties informed of on going issues that directly effect the AMO and in the end will materially effect the contentions between the MEBA and AMO we submit the following article.

From Tradewinds

By Bob Rust

Published: 31 March 2006

US federal prosecutors have revealed a key informant in their case against union leaders.

Gordon Spencer, the long-time top lobbyist for shipowners associated with the American Maritime Officers (AMO) union, has emerged as a key secret informant in a Florida federal prosecution of AMO leaders.

Four other AMO leaders, employees or former employees including president Michael McKay and treasurer Robert McKay were indicted last summer on varying sets of charges including embezzlement of union funds, rigging of union elections, illegal political contributions, mail fraud and conspiracy.

But by that time Spencer, a prominent figure in Washington maritime circles, had already agreed to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor count of making illegal campaign contributions "through conduits or strawmen", pursuant to a June 2005 plea bargain. TradeWinds previously revealed that republican congressmen Bud Shuster and Don Young were the recipients of contributions allegedly funnelled from AMO controlled accounts.

The Spencer deal, recently disclosed in documents filed by prosecutors, brings the total of guilty pleas in the case to four, all but Spencer's involving felony counts. The three remaining defendants, who maintain their innocence, are the McKay brothers and James Lynch, who formerly captained the Amos , the eponymous yacht of the American Maritime Officers Services (AMOS), an association of shipowners whose crews are organised by the AMO.

Spencer's role as prosecution witness is disclosed in prosecutors' filings in response to an unsuccessful motion by Lynch to sever his case from those of the McKays.

Another recent setback for the remaining defendants was a change of plea from not guilty on all counts to guilty on one felony count of embezzlement by Phillip Ciccarelli, the building manager at the AMO's Dania Beach, Florida headquarters.
TradeWinds reported in February that two other defendants not originally named, AMO defectors Thomas Kelly and Jerry Joseph, had pleaded guilty to single felony counts and agreed to co-operate with government prosecutors.

The long-time AMO officials left after losing a 2001 election battle against the McKays. For a time they served rival Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association (Meba) as consultants, leading to a series of lawsuits.

The McKay brothers, who have expressed confidence to the membership that they will be vindicated, continue in their leadership roles at the union but are under travel restrictions and may not sign cheques or do other financial business for the union pending their trial.

Meanwhile, the trial, expected to take three to four weeks, has been rescheduled to 11 September, reportedly because of illness of a defence lawyer. This entails that the trial will overlap the AMO's next elections, in which balloting will begin in October and a final count will be held in December. Observers expect that daily reports from the trial could have a marked effect on voting for AMO leadership candidates.

Read more!

Interlake Steamship Revisited

Davis and Crew are overwhelming the Membership with details regarding the notion that Mike Jewell's protests regarding the last election is the cause of the sad state of the Union financial solvency yet last weeks FRC Committe Reveiw gave Davis and his Crew outstanding marks for maintaining the Union finances on sound footing. Let's look at the possible cost (note bold and italiced section) that the Interlake Steamship Contract could reflect if MEBA were to lose this battle. Should not the Union Leadership be more concerned with keeping the Membership updated on this issue?


From April AMO Newspaper

Interlake saga in new twist as 'raid' dispute spreads to tug-barge unit.

By DANIEL L. SMITH

Another front has opened in the ongoing controversy involving American Maritime Officers, the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association and Interlake Steamship Co. on the Great Lakes.


In a letter to me dated March 8, Interlake Senior Vice President Robert Dorn said a collective bargaining agreement between our union and Interlake Transportation Inc.--a separate company owned by Interlake Steamship--would not be renewed. AMO had been attempting to settle on a successor agreement with Interlake Transportation, which owned and operated a single vessel--the tug-barge combination Dorothy Ann and Pathfinder.

Dorn wrote: "For business reasons, Interlake Steamship Co. and Interlake Transportation Inc. has (sic) changed their corporate structure. Interlake Transportation has been dissolved and the tug Dorothy Ann is now owned and operated directly by Interlake Steamship. As you know, the contract between Interlake Transportation and the American Maritime Officers has expired. Since the Interlake Steamship Co. fleet, now including the Dorothy Ann, is being operated as an integrated whole under Interlake's contract with MEBA, the Dorothy Ann officers have been accreted into the Interlake Steamship Co. fleet as part of the Interlake Steamship's bargaining unit. Accordingly, effective immediately, the Dorothy Ann's officers will be covered under Interlake Steamship's contract with MEBA and MEBA will be the bargaining agent of the officers aboard the Dorothy Ann."

This structural sleight-of-hand was the work of James Barker, the chairman and principal owner of Interlake Steamship Co., after apparent prompting from MEBA President Ron Davis. Barker is already known to AMO members everywhere for the bedtime bargain he made with Davis--the collusive, concessionary 10-year Interlake-MEBA contract signed in July 2003, six days before the expiration of a three-year collective bargaining agreement between AMO and Interlake. The Interlake Steamship Co.-MEBA contract--brokered by former AMO National Executive Vice President Jerry Joseph and signed at Barker's home, where Davis and others were overnight guests--covered the engineers and mates aboard the company's seven active, self-propelled, self-unloading Great Lakes bulk carriers.

The AMO-Interlake Transportation collective bargaining agreement covering the captains, mates, engineers and stewards (including reliefs) aboard the Dorothy Ann-Pathfinder expired in March 2005. AMO agreed to extend the contract through December 2005 and sought repeatedly to negotiate a successor agreement. But there was no movement all through the winter or into March 2006, when the Dorothy Ann officers returned to Sturgeon Bay to fit the vessel out for the new Great Lakes shipping season.

In the case of the Interlake self-unloaders, Davis agreed easily to steep wage, benefit and work-rule concessions that saved Barker a bundle and cost the Interlake vessel officers plenty. We were not surprised to learn that Barker had wrung the same concessions from Davis in the Dorothy Ann case. Nor were we surprised to learn that Davis was quick to accommodate the man who had intimidated so many of the Interlake self-unloader engineers and mates into MEBA membership nearly three years ago.

As an affiliate of the Seafarers International Union of North America, American Maritime Officers this time was able to call upon the SIUNA to file a formal complaint against MEBA with American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations President John Sweeney. The complaint alleged that, in the Dorothy Ann case, MEBA violated Article XX of the AFL-CIO Constitution, which protects established union jurisdictions from encroachment by other unions. We believe we have a strong case, and we will report the outcome to everyone in our union immediately.

Meanwhile, we are exploring other options. For example, the Dorothy Ann case could factor into the lawsuit filed by AMO against MEBA at the end of 2005. That action charges MEBA, Davis, MEBA Vice President Don Keefe and five MEBA benefit funds with interfering with the legitimate collective bargaining agreement between our union and Interlake Steamship Co. in 2002 and 2003. AMO has asked for a jury trial, a minimum of $60 million in "direct and consequential" damages, $280 million in punitive damages, attorneys' fees and court costs, and "any further relief in law or equity to which (AMO) is entitled." The public record--a court-ordered arbitration won by AMO against Interlake Steamship Co. and a judgment won by our union against Jerry Joseph in a civil "trade secrets" case that focused in part on the Interlake-MEBA self-unloader contract--supports our argument, and we are confident that AMO will prevail

Redefining the 'company union'

Ron Davis has said many times that the Interlake-MEBA contract signed in 2003 was the result of "organizing" in the Interlake Steamship Co. by MEBA.

We have said many times in response that a legitimate union organizing drive begins with pledge cards signed voluntarily by the employees in the potential bargaining unit, provides for a vote by employees to accept or reject representation by the union, involves often stiff resistance from the employer, and ends with a signed contract.

The Interlake Steamship Co.-MEBA example was nothing like that. A contract was signed first, and there was no resistance at all from the employer--indeed, Barker and other Interlake executives ordered the vessel officers to choose between signing MEBA pledge cards and losing their jobs (Barker proved to be Davis's most effective "organizer"). There was no vote by the Interlake engineers and mates to accept MEBA as their collective bargaining agent.

Davis's slur against every honorable union organizer in U.S. history was compounded in Dorn's Dorothy Ann letter. Dorn referred to the Dorothy Ann officers as "part of the Interlake Steamship's bargaining unit." The Interlake officers actually comprise a MEBA bargaining unit, but no one at MEBA appears willing to distinguish between the company and the union. Poor choice of words by Dorn, or a subconscious slip confirming the nature of the Interlake-MEBA relationship?

Read more!