Air Line Pilots Association, International

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Feb 15, 2011

05-CA-034837 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 15, 2011)

JD–07–11
Herndon, VA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL
and Cases 5-CA-34837
5-CA-35014
5-CA-351391
5-CA-35244
5-CA-35419
UNION OF ALPA PROFESSIONAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE EMPLOYEES, UNIT 1
and
STEPHEN A. NAGROTSKY, AN INDIVIDUAL 5-CA-35699
Patrick J.Cullen, Esq., and Brendan Keough, Esq., of Baltimore, MD,
for the General Counsel.
Robert D.Kurnick, Esq. of Washington, DC,
for the Charging Party.
Kathleen M.Keller, Esq., and Devki K.Virk, Esq., of Washington, DC,
for the Respondent-Employer.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Bruce D. Rosenstein, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried before me on
November 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 15, 2010, in Washington, DC, pursuant to a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing (the complaint) issued on July 5, 2010, by the
Regional Director for Region 5 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board). The
complaint, based upon charges filed on various dates in 2008 and 20092 by Union of ALPA
Professional and Administrative Employees, Unit 1, (the Charging Party or Unit 1), and Stephen
A. Nagrotsky, an individual, (Nagrotsky) alleges that Air Line Pilots Association, International
(the Respondent or ALPA), has engaged in certain violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the

1 By order dated October 29, 2010, the Regional Director severed Cases 5-CA-35139 and
5-CA-35699 from the above remaining cases due to the parties entering into an informal Board
Settlement Agreement that remedied paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint (GC Exh. 1-QQ).
Therefore, no finding will be made concerning those allegations.
2 All dates are in 2009 unless otherwise indicated.
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2
National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent filed a timely answer to the complaint
denying that it had committed any violations of the Act.
Issues
The complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by
promulgating and maintaining a work rule and coercing employees about a grievance pending
against the Respondent. The complaint further alleges that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by refusing to provide necessary and relevant information to Unit 1,
refusing to provide prior notice to Unit 1 and an opportunity to bargain with respect to the
decision to layoff employees and the effects of this conduct, and without first bargaining with
Unit 1 to a good faith impasse. Additionally, the complaint alleges that the Respondent
discontinued its merit pay program and unilaterally implemented the terms of its April 16 last,
best, and final contract offer without first bargaining with Unit 1 to a good- faith impasse.
On the entire record,3 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Charging Party, and the Respondent, I
make the following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
The Respondent, a labor organization, is an unincorporated association with a place of
business in Herndon, Virginia, where it represents employees in bargaining with employers.
Respondent in conducting its business operations collected and received dues and initiation
fees in excess of $50,000 from its members throughout the United States and purchased and
received at its Herndon, Virginia facility products, goods and materials valued in excess of
$5,000 directly from points outside the State of Virginia. The Respondent admits and I find that
it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act and that Unit 1 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Background
ALPA is a labor organization representing air line pilots at numerous air lines in the
United States and Canada. ALPA’s primary office is located in Herndon, Virginia. ALPA has
offices in various locations in the United States that service pilots at a particular carrier or
carriers. Unit 1 represents ALPA’s professional staff, and Unit 2 represents support staff
employees. Unit 1 employees include financial analysts, attorneys, paralegals, negotiators,
engineers and public relations specialists. Since at least 1988, Unit 1 has been the designated
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit and, since then, it has been

3 The Motion of the General Counsel and the Charging Party to correct the transcript, dated
January 24, 2011, is granted and received in evidence as GC Exh. 79.
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
3
recognized as the representative by Respondent.4 This recognition has been embodied in
successive collective-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which was effective from April
1, 2008 through March 31.5
The Air Line industry has been faced with difficult decisions and challenges over the past
several years including the loss of airlines, thousands of furloughed employees, grim industry
forecasts, a nationwide recession and changes necessitated by the merger of Delta Airlines and
Northwest Airlines. These dramatic changes greatly impacted ALPA and it forced them to
dramatically reduce costs in 2008 and 2009 that have been difficult and painful. In this regard,
dues income fell to the lowest level in 10 years and staff has been reduced by more than 30%
since 2002. This dramatic downsizing has had a negative impact on ALPA’s financial reserves
and it no longer has the flexibility to use cash reserves to fund ongoing operations.
In order to get its fiscal house in order in response to this new reality, ALPA made two
dramatic changes in its 2009 budget. In addition to eliminating additional staff positions and
leaving vacancies unfilled, it reduced national committee budgets, departmental budgets, cut
spending across the board and implemented a wage freeze for senior management in 2008 and
for all management and non-bargaining unit employees for 2009.
It was against this backdrop that ALPA entered successor collective-bargaining
negotiations with Unit 1 in January 2009. Because of these financial realities, ALPA made
proposals to reduce costs in the areas of wages and health care for active employees and the
retiree health plan. These proposals were significant and the impact would be felt by all
employees across the organization. In this regard, ALPA proposed a two year wage freeze that
includes a freeze on salary ranges and no increase in FICA contributions over the course of the
agreement. With respect to health care, ALPA proposed that employees pay between 5-10% of
medical premiums on a monthly basis in 2009 and 15% of total premiums in 2010. For retired
employees, ALPA proposed to increase the age and years of service requirements from 56
years of age with 18 years of service to 65 years of age with 25 years of service, modify the
plan design, and increase required monthly contributions from all retirees.
At all material times Jalmer Johnson held the position of ALPA’s General Manager and
Kelly Collie served as the Director of Human Resources/Chief Spokesperson during the 2009
collective-bargaining negotiations. Senior Managing Attorney James Johnson served as a
member of ALPA’s negotiating committee for the 2009 negotiations as he had in previous years
since at least the early 1990’s.
Senior Attorney John Wells held the position of Unit 1 President during the period of the
2009 collective-bargaining negotiations and was an ex-officio member of the negotiating
committee. ALPA employees Wayne Klocke and Russ Woody served as Unit 1’s co-chairman
of the negotiating committee while Eric Iverson and Paul Karg served as members during the
2009 negotiations.

4 Presently Unit 1 is comprised of 164 members. Approximately, 100 work in Herndon,
Virginia, with the remaining employees located in various field offices.
5 Respondent implemented its last, best, and final contract offer on May 7. The contract
runs from April 1 to March 31, 2011. This issue will be addressed later in the decision.
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
4
B. The 8(a)(1) and (5) Allegations
1. Refusal to Provide Information
The General Counsel alleges in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of the complaint that the
Respondent since on or about January 5, 7, 13, and February 9, has refused to provide Unit 1
necessary and relevant information regarding which Unit 1 positions would be eliminated, the
names of employees who would be laid off, and a detailed explanation of how each Unit 1
employee laid off to date, or proposed to be laid off in the future was selected.
a. Facts
By letter dated January 5, Unit 1 requested ALPA to provide it with information setting
forth specific Unit 1 positions, if any, in MSP (Minneapolis) and/or DTW (Detroit) that will be
eliminated, specific individual employees in MSP and/or DTW that will be terminated, and when
the elimination and/or terminations will be effective (GC Exh. 6-par.1(b)).
On January 7, Unit 1 orally requested that ALPA furnish it with the names of the five
employees who would be laid off from the Herndon, Virginia, facility.
By letter dated January 13, Unit 1 requested ALPA to provide a detailed explanation of
how each Unit 1 employee laid off to date or proposed to be laid off in the future was selected
and the identities of the employees selected for layoff (GC Exh. 8-Items a and b).
By letter dated January 13, ALPA replied to Unit 1’s request for information dated
January 5. ALPA provided the information responsive to Unit 1’s requests, however, it was not
provided until after the job abolishment’s/layoffs took place on January 8 and 9, in Herndon,
Virginia (R Exh. 37).
On February 9, Unit 1 orally requested that ALPA furnish it with the identities of the
employees who would be laid off in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
On January 6, Unit 1 orally and in a January 13 letter, demanded that ALPA bargain
over the decision to conduct any layoffs and the effects of this conduct (GC Exh. 8).
b. Discussion
The Board has held that a union is entitled to requested information “if there is a
probability that such data is relevant and will be of use to the union in fulfilling its statutory duties
as the employees’ exclusive bargaining representative.” Southern Nevada Builders Assn., 274
NLRB 350, 351, (1985). This liberal discovery-type standard nevertheless contains an
important limitation: the data must be of use in fulfilling statutory duties. The “duty to furnish . . .
information stems from the underlying statutory duty imposed on employers and unions to
bargain in good faith with respect to mandatory subjects of bargaining.” Cowles
Communications, Inc., 172 NLRB 1909 (1968).
It is long-established law that the duty to bargain in good faith embodied in Section
8(a)(5) of the Act includes the obligation of employers to provide their employees’ collective
bargaining representatives with requested information which is relevant and necessary to the
representative’s duty to bargain on behalf of employees. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S.
432 (1967). Such information may be needed for bargaining, for administering and policing
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
5
collective-bargaining agreements, for communicating with bargaining unit members, or for
preserving unit employees’ work, among other reasons. Information pertaining to the terms and
conditions of employees in the bargaining unit is presumptively relevant, and must be provided
upon request, without need on the part of the requesting party to establish specific relevance or
particular necessity. Iron Workers Local 207(Steel Erecting Contractors), 319 NLRB 87, 90
(1995).
The duty to furnish information requires a reasonable good faith effort to respond to the
request as promptly as circumstances allow. Good Life Beverage Co., 312 NLRB 1060, 1062
fn. 9 (1993). “An employer must respond to the information request in a timely manner” and [a]n
unreasonable delay in furnishing such information is as much of a violation of Section 8(a)(5) as
a refusal to furnish the information at all.” Amersig Graphics, Inc. 334 NLRB 880, 885 (2000);
see also Newcor Bay City Division, 345 NLRB 1229, 1237 (2005) (and cases cited therein).
Applying these principles, and particularly noting that ALPA conducted job
abolishment’s/layoffs of employees represented by Unit 1 in Herndon, Virginia, on January 8
and 9, Minneapolis, Minnesota, on February 19, and in Houston, Texas, on February 26, the
requests for information were presumptively relevant.
Both Klocke and Iverson credibly testified that the above information requested in the
January 5 letter and orally on January 7, was not provided to Unit 1 until after the job
abolishment’s occurred in Herndon, Virginia. Moreover, the information requested orally on
February 9, and the information requested in the January 13 letter, was not provided to Unit 1.
Collie did not dispute those assertions and admitted during her hearing testimony that ALPA
either provided the information after the layoffs in Herndon, Virginia, or did not provide the
remaining information requested by Unit 1.
Under these circumstances, I find that ALPA violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act
by not providing requested information or not providing information in a timely manner.
2. The layoff of Unit 1 employees
The General Counsel alleges in paragraph 11 of the complaint that on or about January
8 and 9, February 19, February 26, and January 29, 2010, Respondent laid off employees from
its facilities in Herndon, Virginia, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Houston Texas, without prior
notice and affording Unit 1 an opportunity to bargain with Respondent regarding the decision
and effects of laying off these employees, and/or without first bargaining with Unit 1 to a good-
faith impasse.
a. Facts
Unit 1 and ALPA have had a long standing collective-bargaining relationship. In the
parties collective-bargaining agreement for the period January 1 through December 31, 1990, at
Section 10, (Severance Pay), it states in pertinent part that “In the event a Staff Employee’s
position is abolished and ALPA is unable to provide work of comparable pay the following
severance provisions will apply based on his then current salary” (R Exh. 18). The severance
section continued to appear in successor collective-bargaining agreements with additional
modifications through December 31, 1991 (R Exh. 4, 11, 19, and 20). Commencing with the
parties’ January 1, 1992 through December 32, 1995 collective-bargaining agreement
severance pay remained in place but the Section was changed from 10 to 11 (R Exh. 8). The
Section 11 severance pay provisions were continued in successor agreements that were in
effect from January 1, 1996 through March 31, 2008 (R Exh. 10, 13, and 14). The parties’
entered into a one year extension of their collective-bargaining agreement from April 1, 2008
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6
through March 31 (R Exh. 1). For the first time, the provisions of Section 11 were now re-titled
as Recall/Rehire and Severance Pay (GC Exh. 42). The abolishment of employees’ jobs in
January and February 2009 that are alleged in the subject complaint occurred under the
provisions of that agreement.
Unit 1 and ALPA have experienced the impact of job abolishment’s since as for back as
1985. ALPA negotiating committee member Johnson, who served on successor collective-
bargaining agreement negotiating teams since 1995, testified that for the job abolishment’s that
occurred in 1985, 1990, 1994-1995, 2004, 20086, and 2009, ALPA determined that it exclusively
retained the discretion to conduct job abolishments/RIF’s and even if Unit 1 had requested to
negotiate over the decision to abolish positions, ALPA would have declined to do so. Each
time, ALPA followed the terms of Section 10 or 11 of the parties’ agreement then in effect. In
that regard, Johnson and Collie testified that prior to 2009, when ALPA conducted RIF’s or
abolished positions, Unit I never requested to negotiate over the decision or the effects of that
decision. Likewise, Collie and Johnson admitted that at no time during a period when
negotiations occurred concerning the abolishment of employee jobs or a RIF, did Unit 1 ever
explicitly waive its right to negotiate over such a decision nor did it intentionally relinquish its
right to bargain on this subject. The evidence shows, however, that Unit 1 on a number of
occasions during negotiations over Section 10 and 11, attempted to add a provision that
employee seniority would be followed when abolishing staff positions. On each such occasion
that a proposal of that nature was made, ALPA rejected it arguing unlike pilots who are fungible,
the professional and administrative positions are unique to each supporting airline and seniority
in job abolishment’s would cause severe disruption to its experience and expertise.
In December 2008, faced with continuing uncertainty in the airline industry, ALPA made
the decision that it would have to abolish additional positions. Unit 1, however, was not
informed of that decision.
On January 5, ALPA informed Unit 1 that there would be changes in the Minneapolis
office. ALPA did not mention, however, that changes would also be made in the Herndon office.
On or about January 6, during the course of negotiations for the successor collective-
bargaining agreement, and after inquiring whether ALPA was planning additional job
abolishment’s, Unit 1 made an oral request to bargain over any decision to abolish employee
positions in Minneapolis.
On January 7, in a meeting, ALPA informed Unit 1 representatives of its intention to
abolish five Unit 1 positions in Herndon effective January 8 and 9, but did not reveal the
identities of those who would be impacted. ALPA also informed Unit 1 that additional job
abolishments would likely occur but that the specifics of such losses were not presently
finalized.7

6 From May to September 2008, ALPA laid off approximately 34 employees including 16
represented by Unit 1 in large part due to the April 16, 2008, determination by US Airways pilots
to decertify ALPA as their collective-bargaining representative. Unit 1 did not request to
negotiate over the decision to lay off employees or the effects of the decision and the resulting
job abolishments were conducted under the provisions of Section 11 of the parties’ collective-
bargaining agreement then in effect.
7 Unit 1 was not notified in advance of which specific employees in Herndon would have
their jobs abolished, and the majority of those employees received their specific notification on
Continued
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
7
On February 18, ALPA informed Unit 1 that it intended to abolish a number of positions
in the Minneapolis office on February 19, and subsequently informed Unit 1 on February 24 that
it intended to abolish an additional position in Houston, effective February 26, however, it
refused to provide the names of the impacted employees to Unit 1. Each of the employees
subject to job abolishment’s in Herndon, Minneapolis, and Houston was afforded the rights and
benefits due him or her under Section 11 of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement then in
effect through March 31.8
By letter dated November 6, Collie informed Unit 1 that Elaine Grittner’s employment
with ALPA in the Minneapolis office will end January 29, 2010 due to the merger of the
Northwest Airline health and benefit plans with Delta Airlines. Since Grittner’s position of benefit
specialist specifically supported Northwest Airline pilots and those duties were being transferred
to Atlanta for servicing by the current Delta Airlines benefits specialist, it was necessary to
abolish her position (GC Exh. 44).
By an undated letter, in response to Collie’s above letter, Unit 1 specifically requested to
negotiate over the decision to abolish Grittner’s position and the effects of that decision (GC
Exh. 45).
By letter dated November 13, Collie informed Unit 1 that while it would meet with them to
discuss the RIF, it would not negotiate over the decision to layoff Grittner (GC Exh. 46 and R
Exh. 38, p.8-3).
By letter dated November 22, Unit 1 reaffirmed its request that ALPA negotiate over both
the decision and the effects of the Grittner layoff (GC Exh. 47).
The record evidence establishes that when prior job abolishments/RIF’s have been
conducted, Unit 1 in most instances did not independently request that ALPA negotiate over the
decision or the effects of implementing those actions.
b. Discussion
The Respondent, while admitting that it did not negotiate over the 2009-10 job
abolishment/layoff of Unit 1 employees, defends its conduct on the basis of past practice,
bargaining history, and that the parties had previously bargained over the Respondent’s right to
engage in job abolishment/layoffs. In this regard, ALPA points to the parties’ collective-
bargaining agreement and/or that the parties had bargained to a good-faith impasse concerning
the job abolishment of Unit 1 employee Grittner when it implemented its April 16 contract offer
on May 7.
The clear and unmistakable waiver standard is firmly grounded in the policy of the Act
promoting collective bargaining. It has been applied consistently by the Board for more than 50
years and it has been approved by the Supreme Court. NLRB v. C&C Plywood, 385 U.S. 421
(1967).
_________________________
January 8, the same day that the action was effective.
8 Each of these employees was provided a letter of job abolishment on or before the
effective date of final separation that summarized their entitlements under the parties’ collective-
bargaining agreement (R Exh. 17).
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
8
Accordingly, a union has the statutory right to require an employer to bargain before
making a unilateral change with respect to a term or condition of employment. Indeed, the
Board has long held that the decision to layoff employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining.
Toma Metals, Inc. 342 NLRB 787 (2004); Ebenezer Rail Car Services, Inc. 333 NLRB 167
(2001).
Conversely, the employer’s authority to act unilaterally is predicated on the union’s
waiver of its right to insist on bargaining. Indeed, unless discharged or waived, the duty to
bargain continues during the term of the collective bargaining agreement. However, a party
may contractually waive its right to bargain about a subject. Where such a waiver is claimed,
the test is whether the putative waiver is in “clear and unmistakable” language. Likewise, when
a “management-rights” clause is the source of an asserted waiver, it is normally scrutinized by
the Board to ascertain whether it affords specific justification for unilateral action.9
The clear and unmistakable waiver standard requires bargaining partners to
unequivocally and specifically express their mutual intention to permit unilateral employer action
with respect to a particular employment term, notwithstanding the statutory duty to bargain that
would otherwise apply.
The Board in Teamsters Local Union No.71, 331 NLRB 152 (2000), a case strikingly
similar to the facts herein, rejected the respondent’s argument that it was privileged to act
unilaterally in laying off an employee based on the contractual language at issue. Rather, the
Board found that the contract language in that case only provided for the succession of layoffs
and the manner in which those layoffs would be implemented should they become necessary.
Accordingly, the Board concluded that the respondent had an obligation to bargain with the
union over the layoff of the employee. See also, New York Mirror, 155 NLRB 834, 840 (1965)
(severance and termination provisions are at best equivocal since they contain no specific
reference to a right by the respondent to terminate operations without prior notice and
bargaining with the unions).
It is significant to note that Section 11 of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement that
ALPA relies upon in conducting the 2009 job abolishments/RIF’s is titled Recall/Rehire and
Severance Pay. That section addresses job abolishment but there is no mention of the word
RIF or layoff. This is in stark contrast to a specific section in the Unit 2 collective-bargaining
agreement (Section 7.05)10 regarding RIF’s that also contains a Management Rights Clause
(Section 3.01) that reserves to ALPA the right to layoff employees (GC Exh. 62). Likewise, the
record establishes that during successor collective-bargaining negotiations during 1991-92 and
1996, ALPA proposed that a “management rights clause” be inserted in the parties’ agreement.
On each occasion, Unit 1 rejected the proposal and ALPA subsequently withdrew it (GC Exh.

9 The issue of a management rights clause is not present in the subject case as no such
clause is contained in the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement.
10 That section requires ALPA to choose employees for layoff in reverse order of seniority
whenever it determines that it is necessary to lay off one or more employees in the bargaining
unit.
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
9
75-77).11 ALPA also specifically recognized the differences in the Unit 1 and Unit 2 collective-
bargaining agreements regarding the separation of employees when it prepared background
information prior to conducting a RIF in 1994-95 (CP Exh. 6).
The above discussion is a strong indicator that ALPA was aware of the significant
limitations set forth in Section 11 when it came to the decision to abolish jobs or conduct a RIF.
Indeed, ALPA negotiator Johnson admitted that there is nothing in the parties’ 2004-2009
collective-bargaining agreement that provides ALPA with the absolute discretion to conduct job
abolishments/RIF’s.
The Board’s Teamster and New York Mirror cases cited above are persuasive precedent
that the succession of layoffs and the manner in which layoffs are conducted is what Section 11
contemplates. I do not find, as argued by ALPA, that Section 11 is a clear and unmistakable
waiver of Unit 1’s statutory right to bargain over the decision and/or the effects of barging unit
employees’ job abolishment’s. This is particularly evident based on ALPA’s admissions that
Unit 1 has never waived its right to negotiate over the decision to conduct job
abolishments/RIF’s nor did it intentionally relinquish its right to bargain on this subject.12

Under these circumstances, I find that ALPA’s refusal to negotiate over the decision and
its effects regarding the job abolishment’s/RIF’s in Herndon, Minneapolis, Houston and
Grittner‘s January 29, 2010 separation from her position, violates Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act.
ALPA’s reliance on the holding in California Pacific Medical Center, 337 NLRB 910
(2002) for the proposition that a waiver may be inferred from the parties’ past conduct due to the
fact that the respondent historically exercised the right to layoff employees without prior
bargaining about the decision is misplaced. Rather, unlike the subject case, the decision in that
case found the parties’ contract language at section 17 gave the respondent the right to
“determine its staffing”. Accordingly, the Board upheld the administrative law judge’s finding
that the contract language gives the respondent the right to determine the “number of jobs”
clearly meaning that it may reduce the number of jobs in the case of layoffs or job changes.
Moreover, there were no discussion in that case of the Board’s long held principle that a union’s
acquiescence in prior unilateral changes does not operate as a waiver of its right to bargain over
such changes for all time, that is specifically applicable to the subject case. Owens-Corning
Fiberglass, 282 NLRB 609 (1987).

11 ALPA’s argument that Section 8 of the parties’ 1992-1995 collective bargaining
agreement (R Exh. 8) is equivalent to a management rights clause is rejected. That Section
addresses discipline and discharge that must be established based on just cause and does not
address the issue of hiring or the layoff of employees.
12 I also note the testimony of former Unit 1 President Patrick Brennaman, who while serving
on the negotiation committee in 1994-95 when ALPA abolished jobs of bargaining unit
employees, credibly testified consistent with his bargaining notes that ALPA engaged in
negotiations over the decision and effects of conducting those job abolishment’s/RIF’s (GC Exh.
78 and R Exh. 5 and 7). Additionally, in 2004, when ALPA’s print shop was closed, collective-
bargaining negotiations occurred with Unit 1 concerning the job abolishment of 11 print shop
employees and whether benefits would be granted to those individuals (GC Exh. 72 and 73).
These examples confirm that ALPA did not have a consistent and established past practice of
refusing to negotiate over the decision and effects of employee job abolishments/layoffs.
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
10
3. Discontinuance of the merit pay program and/or not distributing merit pay to employees
The General Counsel alleges in paragraph 12 of the complaint that on or about April 1,
the Respondent discontinued its merit pay program and/or did not make merit pay payments to
bargaining unit employees without first bargaining to a good faith impasse.
a. Facts
The evidence discloses that employees’ whose performance appraisals were due on or
about March 31, the date the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement expired, had them
completed in advance by their respective supervisor before they were forwarded to Human
Resources for computation of the employees merit pay entitlement (R Exh. 21). The
Respondent determined, however, to hold all performance evaluations for the approximately 25
employees who were due merit pay payments as it had done in previous years when the parties
did not reach a successor agreement until after the expiration of the effective collective-
bargaining agreement. Collie testified that merit pay is in effect for a contract year and upon the
agreement’s expiration on March 31, employees’ merit pay entitlements ended. Accordingly, no
employee whose anniversary date occurred after the expiration of the agreement was permitted
to receive their merit pay entitlement. Unit 1 negotiators credibly testified and the Respondent
admits that it did not notify or engage in negotiations with Unit 1 before it unilaterally held all
performance appraisal evaluations and ceased making merit pay payouts on April 1. The
Respondent defends its conduct on the basis that once the collective-bargaining agreement
expired there was no foundation for which to make merit pay awards otherwise due to those
employees whose anniversary dates occurred during the period that no contract was in effect.
It is significant to note, and admitted by Collie, that all the terms and conditions of
employment including the dues check-off provisions (Section 15) were continued in full force
and effect after the March 31 expiration of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement. The
only exception was that the merit pay provisions were unilaterally suspended and eligible
employees were prevented from receiving their merit pay entitlements.
b. Discussion
The fallacy of the Respondent’s argument is that mandatory terms and conditions of
employment continue in full force and effect after the expiration of a collective bargaining
agreement and may not be changed while parties are engaged in successor collective-bargaining
negotiations without the consent of the labor organization or without bargaining to a good faith
impasse. Newcor Bay City Division, 345 NLRB 1229, 1237 (2005). In the subject case, the
unilateral change of not making merit pay payments occurred on April 1, after the expiration of the
parties’ collective-bargaining agreement on March 31, and during the course of bargaining for a
successor agreement. Ironton Publications, Inc., 321 NLRB 1048 (1996) (merit pay increases).
Indeed, this change occurred during a period of time before ALPA Implemented its last, best, and
final contract offer on May 7, and prior to ALPA’s argument that a good faith impasse was
reached. Daily News of Los Angeles, 315 NLRB 1236 (1994), enfd. 73 F. 3d 406 (D.C. Cir. 1996)
(employer violated Section 8(a)(5) by discontinuing merit pay program while bargaining for an
agreement).

JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
11
Based on these facts, and particularly noting the unrebutted testimony of Klocke and
Iverson that the Respondent did not negotiate with Unit 1 before it ceased making merit pay
distributions to eligible employees, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act.13
4. Implementation of the last, best, and final contract offer
a. Facts
The General Counsel alleges in paragraph 12 of the complaint that after negotiating at
various times between January and May 2009 in an effort to finalize a successor collective-
bargaining agreement, the Respondent on May 7, unilaterally implemented the terms of its last,
best, and final contract offer dated April 16, without bargaining to a good faith impasse.14 The
General Counsel and Unit 1 argue that unremedied unfair labor practices prevented a good faith
impasse. Prior to the expiration of the parties’ 2004-2008 agreement, ALPA and Unit 1 agreed to
enter into limited negotiations to cover subjects other than wages, with the goal of reaching a
one-year successor agreement that would be subject to renegotiation in 2009. Negotiations for
that agreement took place in March and April 2008, and included additional protections for
bargaining unit members in the event of further job abolishments. ALPA and Unit 1 agreed to a
number of enhanced rights for laid-off workers under Section 11, adding new subsections G
through I.
The evidence discloses that the parties commenced collective-bargaining negotiations for
their successor agreement on January 5 and engaged in 26 collective-bargaining sessions that
consumed over 100 hours and culminated with their last session on April 30.15

13 I do not find ALPA’s argument that it was privileged to change the merit pay program
under the Stone Container case doctrine, 313 NLRB 336 (1993) to be persuasive. In this
regard, unlike the subject case, the doctrine can only be applied if an employer provides the
union with reasonable advance notice and an opportunity to bargain about the intended change.
Here, the record is clear that ALPA did not give Unit 1 advance notice that employees who were
scheduled for merit pay increases after March 31 would not receive them due to the expiration
of the parties’ contract on that date. Further, I note that the parties’ agreement to freeze wage
rates going forward for all performance appraisal levels was contingent on reaching a successor
collective bargaining agreement, a condition that was not achieved due to ALPA’s unlawful
implementation of its last, best, and final contract offer on May 7.
14 Upon the expiration of the parties’ agreement on March 31, and in accordance with past
practice, Unit 1 and ALPA entered into a series of “standstill agreements” for the purpose of
continuing negotiations in an effort to finalize a successor collective-bargaining agreement. In
this regard, the parties agreed to participate in the negotiation and mediation process and
resolved that no economic action would be undertaken by either party. Additionally, Unit 1
agreed to discontinue its informational picketing and ALPA committed that no new job
abolishments would occur during this period (GC Exh. 28, 29, and 30).
15 The parties collective-bargaining notes show that negotiation sessions occurred on
January 5, 6, 7, 13 and 14, February 9, 10, 11, and 12, March 10, 11, 12, 14, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
30, and 31, and on April 1, 3, 14, 16, 17, and 30. The April 3, 14, 16, 17 and 30 negotiation
sessions were held with the assistance of a Federal Mediator (GC Exh. 5 and 43 and R Exh.
15).
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
12
2009 Contract Negotiations
Prior to commencing negotiations on January 5, Unit I provided ALPA with its opening
proposals that sought additional job security and to extend and improve recall and preferential
hiring rights under Section 11 of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement (GC Exh. 4 and R
Exh. 24).
On February 10, Unit 1 presented its proposals to revise their existing agreement. An
example of these proposals include revising Section 13 to provide for accelerated vesting of
retiree health benefits, revising Section 11(A) to extend recall and rehire rights to a larger group
of employees for a longer period of time and doubling severance payments for laid-off
employees. Additional proposals to revise Section 11(B) included extended eligibility and
coverage under the group medical and life insurance plan and providing the opportunity of a
voluntary leave of absence of up to two years in lieu of laying-off employees, with medical
benefits provided for the first year and leave time credited for purposes of severance and retiree
health eligibility.
ALPA countered on February 11, declining Unit 1’s proposals regarding revisions to job
abolishment under Section 11, but offering to allow any laid-off employee the option of
continuing medical coverage under COBRA for up to 24 months (GC Exh. 10).
Unit 1 expanded upon its prior proposal regarding Section 11 suggesting that ALPA
provide 60 days notice of any reduction in force, including the location, departments and jobs
affected and require ALPA to meet with Unit 1 to discuss whether the proposed RIF is
necessary and possible means of averting or mitigating the RIF. Unit 1 further proposed that no
full-time employee would be removed until all part-time employees had been removed, and the
layoffs be done by seniority within the affected profession. After negotiations, Unit 1 withdrew
its second proposal regarding part-time employees and seniority when conducting a RIF. ALPA
countered and proposed that 5 days notice be given to Unit 1 prior to any RIF, including the
number of affected positions, the aggregate salary amount, and an offer to meet with Unit 1 to
discuss the RIF.
On March 27, Unit 1 proposed a prohibition on additional job abolishment during the term
of the parties’ agreement, the extension of recall and rehire rights through the term of the
agreement for employees on severance, and a requirement that all vacancies be offered first to
Unit 1 members on severance, with re-training provided as necessary (GC Exh. 13).
ALPA countered by offering concessions on the contracting out of Unit 1 work in Section
11, offering 10 days notice prior to any RIF, and proposing that if the RIF is caused by lack of
work, upon request, ALPA will meet with Unit 1 to consider any proposals for reallocation of
work from non-Unit 1 personnel in order to avoid the RIF.
On March 28, ALPA made another comprehensive package proposal and sweetened its
offer with respect to Section 1 contacting out provisions (GC Exh. 17). ALPA accepted Unit 1’s
proposal that any Unit 1 employee on severance as of the effective date of the new successor
agreement maintains recall/preferential interview rights through the term of the agreement. Unit
1 countered by again proposing no layoffs during the term of the agreement. On March 29, Unit
1 further proposed that the no layoff clause only apply if ALPA dues revenue remained above a
certain level and proposed that in the event of a RIF, employees with less than three years
service be laid off first.
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
13
On April 1, ALPA substantially modified its position regarding Section 11 and offered to
maintain a set number of Unit 1 positions as long as ALPA’s quarterly dues revenue exceeded
a certain amount. Unit 1 countered later that day, proposing that the protection extend to all
employees employed as of April 1, if annual dues remained above a certain level, and that at
least 160 Unit 1 positions be protected if annual dues remained above a different level then
proposed by ALPA. Unit 1 reduced its prior proposal regarding advance notice before a RIF
occurred from 60 to 45 days (GC Exh. 27).
On April 16, after bargaining sessions were held on April 3, 14 and 16 with the assistance
of a Federal Mediator, ALPA made its last, best, and final contract offer. In a further effort to
break the deadlock, additional bargaining sessions were held on April 17 and 30 (GC Exh. 34).
On April 16, Unit 1 accepted the ALPA proposal with specific exceptions regarding
Section 11 (job security), Section 13 (health insurance), Section 16 (red circle employees) and
Section 18 (withdrawal of mid-point grievance if an agreement is reached) (GC Exh. 39, 40, and
41 and R Exh. 34).
On May 6, ALPA met with the Unit 1 leadership to advise them that it intended to
implement its last, best, and final contract offer on May 7.
On May 7, Collie transmitted the last, best, and final April 16 contract offer to all Unit 1
employees (CP Exh. 2).16
The primary issues that separated the parties from reaching a successor collective-
bargaining agreement included job security, retiree health insurance, and the issue of pay
increases for “red circle” employees.
Job Security
Since approximately 2002, due to financial constraints, ALPA has eliminated nearly 140
employee positions, including approximately 47 Unit 1 positions excluding those that are the
subject of this case.
Because Unit 1, under these circumstances, made job security a high priority issue,
ALPA offered to guarantee 95% of the number of Unit 1 positions, but not specific positions, or
individuals, as long as ALPA’s dues revenue remains over 90 million dollars per year as
adjusted on a quarterly basis.
Unit 1 proposed to prohibit the furlough, RIF, or job abolishment of any Unit 1 employee
as of April 1, as long as dues revenue stayed above 46.5 million dollars on a six-month basis
(93 million dollars per year). That specific proposal requires waiting until the end of the six-
month period to act. If dues drop between 46.5 million dollars and 45 million dollars on a six-
month basis, Unit 1 proposed to limit any job elimination to the most junior employees,
regardless of their job or location.

16 The exhibit shows that the vast majority of ALPA’s last, best, and final contract offer was
tentatively agreed to by both parties. For example, sections 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 13 a-m, 14, 16, 17,
18, and 19 were agreed to during the course of negotiations. Many other sections in the final
contract offer remained unchanged from the parties’ prior agreement (R Exh. 34-January 5, Unit
1 opening proposals).
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
14
With respect to advance notification to Unit 1 in the event of job abolishment’s or RIF,
Unit 1 initially proposed (60) working days notice, reduced it to (45) days on April 15, and to (30)
working days notice on April 30. ALPA was unwilling to provide advance notice other then (10)
working days and remained firm in that position during the majority of the negotiation period.
Additionally, Unit 1 demanded to bargain about all aspects of any future decision to reduce Unit
1 staffing. ALPA agreed only to meet and discuss future reductions of staff.

Retiree Health Care
Because of declining revenue and the resulting financial changes that ALPA was forced
to make beginning in 2007, it was necessary to cease making contributions to the retiree health
fund and stop paying health care expenses for retirees out of the general operating expenses.
Between January 1, 2008 and January 1, the retiree health plan became underfunded.
Because Unit 1 employees in the retiree health plan pay less then the Unit 2 clerical and
administrative retiree employees, and they enjoy lower deductibles, co-insurance and co-pays
than those paid by both management and Unit 2 retirees, it was necessary to make changes in
the Unit 1 retiree health program.
Accordingly, ALPA proposed to increase the eligibility levels for employees with less
than five years of service to age 62 with 20 years of service, and for employees hired after April
1, retiree health coverage would require reaching the age of 65 with 25 years of service.
Additionally, ALPA sought to increase the premiums for Unit 1 retiree employees to create parity
between the management and Unit 1 plans.
Unit 1 proposed a fixed dollar premium structure and no change in eligibility for current
employees. The Unit 1 proposal would cost an additional $500,000 per year in comparison to
the ALPA proposal for retiree health coverage.
Red Circle Employees
A number of Unit 1 employees have reached the top of their salary classification and
under those circumstances were foreclosed from receiving across-the-board salary increases
enjoyed by other employees. Accordingly, ALPA provided the “red circle” employees with lump
sum payments to alleviate the economic onus. Unit 1 proposed that the lump sum payments
continue for these employees and argued that with its agreement to eliminate across-the-board
salary increases in 2009 and 2010, it would amount to a double loss of pay for “red circle”
employees if they did not receive the additional lump sum payment.
ALPA’s position was that a pay freeze must be applied to all employees equally and it
would be inappropriate to reward “red circle” employees with additional benefits.
b. Discussion
The Board considers negotiations to be in progress, and thus, will find no genuine
impasse to exist, until the parties are warranted in assuming that further bargaining would be
futile or that there is “no realistic possibility that continuation of discussion at that time would
have been fruitful.” Cotter & Co., 331 NLRB 787, (2000).
The Board does not lightly infer the existence of an impasse, and the burden of proving it
rests on the party asserting it. Naperville Ready Mix, Inc., 329 NLRB 174, 183 (1999), enfd. 242
F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2001). The existence of impasse is a factual determination that depends on a
variety of factors, including the contemporaneous understanding of the parties as to the state of
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
15
negotiations, the good faith of the parties, the importance of the disputed issues, the parties’
bargaining history, and the length of their negotiations. Taft Broadcasting Co., 163 NLRB 475,
478 (1967), enfd. sub nom Television Artist AFTRA v. NLRB, 395 F.2d 622,628 (D.C. Cir.
(1968).
The Board has held that when “parties are engaged in negotiations for a collective-
bargaining agreement,” the employer’s obligation to refrain from unilateral changes regarding
mandatory subjects “extends beyond the mere duty to provide notice and an opportunity to
bargain about a particular subject; rather it encompasses a duty to refrain from implementation
at all, absent overall impasse on bargaining for the agreement as a whole.” Register-Guard,
339 NLRB 353, 354 (2003), quoting RBE Electronics of S.D., Inc., 320 NLRB 80, 81 (1995).
The employer’s obligation to refrain from such changes survives the expiration of the contract
and failure to meet that obligation is a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Newcor
Bay City Division, 345 NLRB 1229, 1237 (2005); Made 4 Film, Inc., 337 NLRB 1152 (2002).
The Board has also held if unremedied unfair labor practices have a direct, serious, and
pervasive adverse effect on the bargaining process and there is a causal connection between
the unremedied unfair labor practices and the parties’ failure to reach agreement, a respondent
can not lawfully declare impasse and implement its final contract offer. Dynatron/Bondo
Corporation, 333 NLRB 750 (2001). Not all unremedied unfair labor practices committed before
or during negotiations, however, will lead to the conclusion that impasse was declared
improperly, thus precluding unilateral changes. Alwin Mfg. Co., 326 NLRB 646, 648 (1998),
enfd. 192 F. 3d 133 (D.C. Coir. 1999). Indeed, only serious unremedied unfair labor practices
that affect the negotiations will taint the asserted impasse. Thus, the central question to resolve
is whether ALPA’s unlawful conduct detrimentally affected the negotiations over the successor
collective-bargaining agreement and contributed to the deadlock.17
Applying the Alwin standard here, I find that there is sufficient evidence that ALPA’s
conduct made it harder for the parties to come to an agreement.
In this regard, from the outset of negotiations, ALPA refused to negotiate over the
decision to abolish/layoff positions in Herndon, Minneapolis, and Houston. ALPA also did not
provide Unit 1, in advance of those separations, with the names of employees or the dates the
job abolishments/layoffs would occur nor did they provide information regarding the reasons
certain employees were selected for separation. Both Klocke and Iverson credibly testified that
the job abolishment’s that occurred in Herndon, three days after the commencement of
negotiations, changed Unit 1’s focus and made the negotiations more difficult since they created
a great deal of mistrust and increased their contentiousness. Indeed, the issue of trust was
significantly breached when ALPA refused to provide Unit 1 with the names and dates for
employees whose jobs were scheduled to be abolished, especially since ALPA knew which
employees would be targeted prior to the job actions taking place and in the separation of the
five Herndon employees did not provide notice or the identities of these employees until January
8, the day they occurred. I conclude that ALPA’s conduct changed the baseline for negotiations
and made it harder for the parties to come to an agreement.

17 In Alwain the court identified two ways in which an unremedied ULP can contribute to the
parties’ inability to reach an agreement. First, a ULP can increase friction at the bargaining
table. Second, by changing the status quo, a unilateral change may move the baseline for
negotiations and alter the parties’ expectations about what they can achieve, making it harder
for the parties to come to an agreement.
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
16
It is specifically noted that one of the three key issues that separated the parties from
reaching a successor agreement was job security. Thus, this was a core issue and ALPA’s
refusal to provide necessary and relevant information in addition to refusing to negotiate over
the decision and effects to abolish positions put Unit 1 at a distinct disadvantage during the
bargaining process. Therefore, it forced Unit 1 to make bargaining proposals to protect unit
employees who would be impacted under Section 11 of the parties’ collective-bargaining
agreement rather then having the opportunity to have information that would have permitted
Unit 1 to formulate proposals over the decision and the effects of the decision to abolish unit
employee positions. Caldwel Manufacturing Company, 346 NLRB 1159, 1170 (2006) (a finding
of valid impasse is precluded where the employer has failed to supply requested information
relevant to the core issues separating the parties).
Under these circumstances, and in agreement with the General Counsel, I find that the
parties were unable to reach an agreement due to the existence of the unremedied unfair labor
practices committed by ALPA. It follows that the parties could not, and did not, reach a good-
faith impasse, and that ALPA was not privileged to implement its final contract offer. Therefore,
I find that ALPA violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act when it implemented its last, best,
and final contract offer on May 7.
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act
2. Unit 1 is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by delaying in or failing
and refusing to provide certain information requested by Unit 1 in letters dated January 5 and13,
and orally on January 7 and February 9, 2009, which was necessary for and relevant to the
performance of Unit 1’s duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
employees in the following unit:
All professional and administrative employees in the service of ALPA; except
supervisory employees.
4. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by unilaterally changing
terms and conditions of employment including merit pay provisions without having reached
agreement with Unit 1.
5. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing to bargain with
Unit 1 over the decision to abolish jobs/lay off employees on January 8 and 9, February 19, 26,
2009, and January 29, 2010, and the effects of that decision.

6. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act when it declared that the
parties were at impasse in their collective-bargaining negotiations, and unilaterally implemented
on May 7,2009, without the parties having reached impasse, the proposals contained in ALPA’s
April 16, 2009, last, best, and final contract offer.
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
17
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
In particular, I shall recommend that the Respondent supply the requested information
other than that which has already been provided to Unit 1. I further recommend that the
Respondent be ordered to place into effect all terms and conditions of employment provided for
by the collective-bargaining agreement which expired on March 31, 2009, and to maintain those
terms in effect until the parties have bargained to a valid impasse, or Unit 1 has agreed to the
changes. Additionally, the Respondent must reinstate and make whole those employees laid off
on January 8 and 9, February 19, and 26, 2009, and January 29, 2010, for any loss of pay, or
other employment benefits suffered as a result of its unlawful conduct.18
I also recommend that the Respondent be ordered to make whole employees and
former employees for any loss of wages or other benefits they suffered as a result of the
Respondent’s implementation of its final April 16, 2009 contract offer on May 7, 2009, including
its unilateral discontinuance of bargaining unit merit pay increases on or about April 1, 2009, in
the manner prescribed in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502
(6th Cir. 1971), with interest compounded on a daily basis as provided for in Jackson Hospital
Corporation d/b/a Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8 (2010).
Lastly, I recommend that the Respondent promptly e-mail or mail the Notice to
Employees consistent with Respondent’s normal method of communicating with employees.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue
the following recommended19
ORDER
The Respondent, Airline Pilots Association, International, Herndon, Virginia, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing to provide Unit 1, or unnecessarily delaying in providing information that is
relevant and necessary to Unit 1’s performance of its duties as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in the following unit:

18 The employees are Marc Bergeron, Stephen Nagrotsky, Richard Parker, Martin Sobol,
John Wiley, Doreen Clark, Midge Jamgochian, Mary Nadeau, Rob Plunkett, Sue Schemm, Jim
Moody and Elaine Grittner.
19 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
18
All professional and administrative employees in the service of ALPA; except
supervisory employees.
(b) Failing to comply with the terms and conditions of employment that are set forth in
the collective-bargaining agreement with Unit 1 that expired on March 31, 2009, until
a new contract is concluded or good-faith bargaining leads to an impasse, or Unit 1
agrees to changes.
(c) Laying off employees without first giving notice and affording the opportunity to
bargain in good faith over the decision and its effects to Unit 1.
(d) Unilaterally implementing changes in the terms and conditions of employment of the
bargaining unit employees including merit pay provisions as provided for in the
expired collective-bargaining agreement without prior notice to, and bargaining in
good faith with, Unit 1 to an agreement or lawful impasse concerning any proposed
changes.
(e) Prematurely declaring impasse and unilaterally implementing new terms and
conditions of employment prior to reaching a lawful impasse in collective-bargaining
negotiations.
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish to Unit 1 the information that it requested on January 13 and February 9,
2009.
(b) Upon request of Unit 1, rescind any and all changes to unit employees’ terms and
conditions of employment implemented on May 7, 2009, and maintain the previous
terms and conditions unless and until the parties bargain in good faith to an
agreement or lawful impasse concerning any proposed changes thereto, and make
unit employees whole, with interest, as provided for in the remedy section of this
decision.
(c) Prior to making any changes in wages, hours, and working conditions for employees
in the unit, meet and bargain in good faith with Unit 1, and if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
(d) On request, bargain with Unit 1 concerning the decision to lay off employees on
January 8 and 9, February 19 and 26, 2009, and January 29, 2010, and the effects
of that decision.
(e) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer the laid off employees reinstatement
to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist to substantially equivalent
positions without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed.
(f) Reinstate and make whole those employees laid off on January 8 and 9, February 19
and 26, 2009, and January 29, 2010, for any loss of pay or other employment
benefits suffered as a result of our unlawful conduct in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of this decision.
(g) Preserve and within 14 days of a request or such additional time as the Regional
Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated
by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(h) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its facilities in Herndon, Virginia,
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
19
Minneapolis, Minnesota and Houston, Texas, copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix.”20 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 5, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be
posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices,
notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by e-mail, posting on an intranet or
an internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily
communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facilities involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of
the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since January 5, 2009.
(i) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the
steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 15, 2011
_____________________
Bruce D. Rosenstein
Administrative Law Judge

20 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words
in the notice reading “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD”
shall read “POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
20
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT fail to provide to Unit 1, or unnecessarily delay in providing information that is
relevant and necessary to Unit 1’s performance of its duties as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the following unit;
All professional and administrative employees in the service of ALPA; except
supervisory employees.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively by unilaterally implementing our final contract offer
made on April 16, 2009 to Unit 1.
We WILL NOT fail to comply with the terms and conditions of employment that are set forth in
the collective-bargaining agreement with Unit 1 that expired on March 31, 2009, until a new
contract is concluded or good-faith bargaining leads to an impasse, or Unit 1 agrees to changes.
WE WILL NOT implement terms and conditions of employment that are different from those in
the collective-bargaining agreement that expired on March 31, 2009, including merit pay
provisions until a new contract is concluded or good-faith bargaining leads to a valid impasse, or
Unit 1 agrees to changes.
WE WILL NOT lay off employees without first giving notice and affording the opportunity to
bargain in good faith over the decision and the effects to Unit 1 as your exclusive collective-
bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL furnish to Unit 1 the information they requested on January 13 and February 9, 2009.
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
21
WE WILL, on request of Unit 1, restore, honor, and continue your terms and conditions of
employment including merit pay provisions set forth in the collective-bargaining agreement with
Unit 1 that expired on March 31, 2009, until a new contract is concluded or good-faith
bargaining leads to an impasse, or Unit 1 agrees to changes.
WE WILL make employees and former employees whole, with interest, for any and all loss of
wages and other benefits incurred as a result of our unlawful alteration and discontinuance of
contractual benefits as set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with Unit 1 concerning the decision to lay off employees on
January 8 and 9, February 19 and 26, 2009, and January 29, 2010, and the effects of that
decision.
WE WILL, offer the laid off employees reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed and make whole those employees whom we laid off on
January 8 and 9, February 19 and 26, 2009, and January 29, 2010, for any loss of pay or other
employment benefits suffered as a result of our unlawful conduct in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of this decision.

WE WILL, prior to making any changes in wages, hours, and terms of conditions for employees
in the unit, meet and bargain with Unit 1 and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement.
Air Line Pilots Association, International
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
103 South Gay Street, The Appraisers Store Building, 8th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202-4061
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
410-962-2822.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING
AND MUST NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS
CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE
REGIONAL OFFICE’S COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 410-962-2864.
JD–07–11
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
22