Q & A
Questions and Answers 32 - 33
Question 32: Aren’t Richard Anderson and Delta management interfering in a union representation election and isn’t that illegal?
Answer: Attached to this email are photos taken at Delta’s Inflight offices. You can see from these pictures there is nothing “neutral” about the way Delta management is treating this representation election—executives are singularly driven to prevent our union from becoming a part of the merger process, from having a voice at the bargaining table, from fighting for job protections for both Delta and Northwest flight attendants.
The Representation Manual available online from the National Mediation Board does not list examples of what might constitute election interference or what would be supported by the Board as verifiable allegations of such interference. However, its “Frequently Asked Questions” webpage states, “[t]he NMB has found election interference where the carrier: conducts improper surveillance of employees; interrogates employees; discharges or disciplines employees; confers benefits on employees, and; solicits or collects ballots.” According to the NMB manual, “[a]llegations of election interference must state a prima facie case that the laboratory conditions were tainted and must be supported by substantive evidence. Allegations of election interference not sufficiently supported by substantive evidence will be dismissed.”
AFA-CWA activists, including Delta and Northwest flight attendants participating in airport Visibility Campaigns across the country, have been collecting “substantive evidence” of election interference. This includes photographs of Delta management physically standing between flight attendants, preventing them from speaking to one another about the vote process, incidents of harassment by supervisors, outright lies told to flight attendants to mislead them about the right to vote, and not-so-subtle surveillance. Delta executives are pressuring Inflight supervisors to “win” this election by suppressing the vote. Some supervisors are handling that pressure better than others.
Delta executives clearly realize that if our union represents their flight attendants, too, it will mean a loss of control for Delta’s executives in executing this merger—why else would they fight so hard to keep the union out, even risking violating the Railway Labor Act to do so? They have never had to negotiate with flight attendants; with no union and no contract, all they have ever done is give orders and issue memos. Without AFA-CWA to contend with, they can maintain that oligarchic status quo.
NMB procedure provides for the election to continue as scheduled, with “allegations of election interference only [to be considered] after the tally, except in extraordinary circumstances.” If the NMB finds interference it can order a number of actions, including a rerun election. Rest assured that, no matter the outcome of the Delta representation election, we are prepared to exercise all measures available to us under the law to pursue remedies for management’s voter suppression tactics during this election.
Question 33: Why hasn’t the National Mediation Board issued a strong warning to Delta executives?
Answer: Under NMB procedures, most charges of election interference are not addressed until after the election is over, absent “extraordinary circumstances,” as cited above. With the NMB currently dominated by anti-labor appointees, the Board has taken an increasingly narrow view of “interference,” and of the rights of workers generally. Management conduct that had been considered election interference for decades is now overlooked or ignored by the current Board’s majority. Finding management conduct to constitute “extraordinary circumstances” is even less likely for a Board so committed to siding with airline management. Nevertheless, AFA-CWA attorneys will continue to press the NMB to address management’s voter suppression tactics for what they are: illegal interference.
Posted by Communications on 05/06 at 06:14 PM