More questions from the members. Emailed to candidates June 26, 2009
John Carr and Bob Marks, previous NATCA Executive President and Southwest Regional Vice President respectively, have been named in a defamation suit in an Arizona State court brought by a PHX supervisor. The suit seeks compensation for the claim of damages concerning a blog that appeared on The Main Bang. The NEB turned down Carr/Marks requests for NATCA legal counsel and their requests for money to defray their legal costs.
A resolution was passed at the 2008 NATCA convention in Miami a defense fund with $300,000.00 was set up. A second resolution was passed that Carr/Marks be given first consideration in the distribution of these funds. The NEB accomplished the first resolution. The NEB announced that based on the advice of counsel they were unable to comply with the second motion. Members on the NEB have since stated that they intend to compensate Carr/Marks for legal expenses with monies from the fund once the matter is resolved and furthermore that counsel has advised them this is legal.
- How do you think NATCA has handled the issue with Carr and Marks in regards to the pending lawsuit?
Ruth Marlin-I think NATCA erred in how it framed the case in the beginning. I believe the lawsuit was an attack on NATCA, and Bob and John were caught personally because it is easier to sue individuals and through discovery get to the deep pockets that are NATCA. I believe it has a chilling effect on our reps (current and former) as well as discouraging others to take up NATCA's cause for fear they may end up in the same situation. I believe if NATCA had taken personalities out of it, the case would have been seen in that way. If the question to our lawyers/insurance companies had been posed from this perspective - A supervisor is suing two former NATCA officers claiming that he was denied career advancement by NATCA's and their actions, what are our options? We would have received a different set of legal options to address the case than if we asked - Two of our former officers are being sued for stuff they put on a blog, can we help them?
At convention and after the issue came up of the legality of using union funds and the best interest of NATCA. I believe defending this case is in the best interest of NATCA as failing to do so will begin a never ending process of suing reps and former reps any time a supervisor gets angry and can find a lawyer to work on contingency. I said on the convention floor, if you are a union organizer in Columbia, they take you off the bus and shoot you in front of the workers. They do it there to send a message to the others not to take up the union cause. In the USA, they sue you. I fully believe this lawsuit is an effort to wound NATCA and NATCA should fight it as such.
Patrick Forrey-No response
Paul Rinaldi-No Comment
Trish Gilbert-I have not seen the documentation that NATCA leadership and staff has relied upon to make the decisions they have on this case. Without having all the facts of the case I cannot say that NATCA has handled or mishandled the case.
- Would you have handled it differently and if so how?
Patrick Forrey-No response
Paul Rinaldi-No comment
Trish Gilbert-See answer above.
- If elected, in what direction will you take NATCA to resolve this matter as it relates to Carr/Marks?
Ruth Marlin -I do not pretend to know all of the legal ins and outs considering where we are now. However, I will meet with our legal team to discover all of the options that can be made available to defend our union and our union brothers. On a side note, I think our leadership has hidden behind "the Lawyers" quite a bit on this one. In some cases, members have asked if certain individuals should be fired. Generally, I try not to bring NATCA staff into our elections process because it is not fair to them. However I will say this, Rita Graf is a brilliant lawyer. She does exactly what she should do, which is to make sure our officers know all of the possible risks and exposure to a course of action. But all action carries risk, even inaction. It is the job of our elected officers to weigh that risk against the benefits of the action or the risks of inaction. I believe NATCA has already been harmed by the course of inaction chosen by our current officers.
Patrick Forrey-No response
Paul Rinaldi-No comment
Trish Gilbert-If elected, I want to see the matter resolved in a manner that protects NATCA and makes Carr/Marks whole.
- Once this matter is settled would you support reimbursing Carr/Marks for their legal expenses with monies from the Legal Defense Fund?
Patrick Forrey-No response
Paul Rinaldi-No comment
Trish Gilbert-Yes
Previous and current FACREPs from PHX-Palmer and Johnston have also been named as defendants as well as current NATCA president-Patrick Forrey. NATCA’s insurance company has determined that Johnston, Palmer and Forrey are covered under the terms of the policy. The insurance company informed the NEB that they intended to contact Gilding-the plaintiff, to explore the possibility of an out of court settlement. The NEB temporarily removed the insurance company from the matter and NATCA has proceeded on its own. The insurance company has advised the NEB that if they want the insurance company to take back over the matter and cover any liability, NATCA needs to make that decision shortly or the insurance coverage will no longer be an option. To date, NATCA has expended over $550,000.00 in legal expenses on this matter. The NEB has announced that if settlement is not reached and the case is not dismissed that it will likely not be heard in court until the summer of 2010.
- How do you think NATCA handled the issue with Palmer/Johnston/Forrey in regards to the lawsuit? Would you have handled it differently and if so how?
- Specifically, do you agree with the decision to proceed with NATCA dues money instead of the using the coverage of our insurance policy? Please explain why.
Ruth Marlin-Like most members, I do not have comprehensive information about the specifics of our handling this so I will refrain from speculating. However, there is a downside to allowing the insurance company to take over the case, and it is just that, it becomes their case and not ours. The insurance company takes over the defense, legal strategy and settlement. Once they have determined the case should be settled, if NATCA refuses it is no longer covered. This can include the concept that even if we have a winning case, if it will cost more to defend than the settlement amount the insurance company will seek that course of action. Their decision is a purely financial one (and on this issue alone), while NATCA must be concerned with the effects on the rest of the organization. If NATCA wants to retain complete control over the matter, it loses the insurance option.
Patrick Forrey-No response.
Paul Rinaldi-No comment.
Trish Gilbert - I will have to stay with the answer above for these questions as well. I believe there are a number of documents, as well as positions from the defendants, counsel (inside and outside) and others that I have not been privy to in my role as Chair of the legislative committee or candidate for EVP. I would like to see this matter resolved and the defendants made whole but I will not pass judgment on the defendants or the NEB until such time as I have all the facts surrounding the case.
- If elected, in what direction will you take NATCA to resolve this matter as it relates to Johnston, Palmer and Forrey?
Ruth Marlin-I don't have enough information on the legal issues to answer at this time.
Pat Forrey-No response
Paul Rinaldi-No comment
Trish Gilbert-See answer above
- Specifically, would you consider a no fault settlement by our insurance carrier that allows NATCA and all concerned parties to put this behind us and move on? Please support your answer.
Pat Forrey-No response
Paul Rinaldi-No comment
Trish Gilbert-See answer above
Seniority is generally determined by NATCA bargaining unit time. Non controller units and non-FAA units are now represented by NATCA (some DOD controllers, Region X members and contract tower air traffic controllers). When a new unit joins NATCA, all time spent in that unit by the current employees or time spent in that unit by employees that have since transferred to another unit represented by NATCA is added to the employees total time for determining his/her seniority date.
A recent interpretation by Patrick Forrey states: ”Only time spent as a Flight Service employee at a Flight Service facility located in Alaska will count toward NATCA seniority dates." NATCA has not honored the time of other current members of NATCA who were once represented by NAATS in facilities not located in Alaska. There is no language in our constitution or precedent supporting this exception to determining seniority time.
- If elected, will you correct the current interpretation so that all time previously spent in bargaining units represented by NAATS count towards NATCA bargaining unit time for the purpose of determining seniority? If not, please explain why not.
Paul Rinaldi-No comment
Trish Gilbert-I believe Pat’s interpretation on allowing Alaska FSS time to count but not NAATS FSS time is correct. NATCA represents Alaska FSS but did not represent the FSS BU when they were under NAATS therefore it is not NATCA Bargaining unit time.
Motions to amend or change seniority been brought up, debated at great length and voted on at every NATCA convention to date. Some members have expressed concern that the current process for amending seniority is flawed, politicized and wastes time that could be spent on more important matters.
- Are you satisfied with the current process?
Patrick Forrey-No response
Paul Rinaldi-No comment
Trish Gilbert-I believe the NATCA convention body should continue to determine seniority. That process allows for debate on the issues and the ability to amendment the policy based on debate.
- If not, what are your suggestions to improve the process?
- Specifically, would you support amending our constitution so that any change proposed to seniority would have to be approved by a member wide ballot before being enacted?
Ruth Marlin-See Above
Patrick Forrey-No response
Paul Rinaldi-No comment
Trish Gilbert-This is a possibility. However, if the membership did not ratify the seniority policy passed by the convention body then would the previous policy stay in place? Also if the convention body voted on multiple changes to the seniority policy would you present that as one or in segments? I would see that the convention body would need to address more than just language to mandate a member wide ballot.
In the current NATCA/FAA contract negotiations, our president appointed himself lead negotiator. Concerns have been raised about the effect this has on the ability of the president to fulfill the obligations of the office and the effect it has on the continuity of conducting union business.
- If elected, would you support an amendment to our constitution that prohibits the President and the Executive Vice President from serving as a member on future contract teams? Please support your answer.
Ruth Marlin -No, I do not believe we should tie the hands of our executive board. They are elected by the members and should be given the latitude to make the decision considering the circumstances. In 2003, we had board members participate on the extension discussions. In 2006, we agreed that current NEB members or those running for office should not serve on the team.
Patrick Forrey- No response.
Paul Rinaldi-No comment.
Trish Gilbert- I don’t think we should tie the President’s hands on what he or she can do or designate.
