Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Labor and World

- class Workforce Subcommittee R ecord of Meeting

November 15, 2010 Communication Workers of America Washington, DC

1 P UBLIC A NNOUNCEMENT

The U.S

. Department of Transportation (DOT) , Office of the Secretary of Transportation, told the public of this Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (FAAC) Labor and World

- class Workforce Subcommittee meeting in a Federal Register noti ce published November 3

, 2010 (75 FR 67805 ).

S UBCOMMITTEE M EMBERS IN A TTENDANCE

Name Affiliation(s) Patricia A. Friend ( Subcommittee Chair) International President Association of Flight Attendants (AFA)

– Communications Workers of America ( CWA ) , American F ederation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL

– CIO) David Barger President and Chief Executive Officer JetBlue Airways Corporation (JetBlue)

Thella F. Bowens President and Chief Executive Officer San Diego County Regional Airport Author ity
John Conley International Administrative Vice President and Air Transport Division Director Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), AFL

– CIO

Cynthia M. Egnotovich Segment President, Nacelles and Interior Systems Goodrich Company (Goodrich)

Robert L . Lekites (by tele phone) President United Parcel Service (UPS) Airlines

Ana McAhron

- Schulz Director of Economic and Financial Analysis Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA)Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Labor and World

- class Workforce Subcommittee R ecord of Meeting

November 15, 2010 Communication Workers of America Washington, DC

2 O THER O FFICIALS P RESENT

Name Affiliation(s) Susan Kurland (Committe e Chair) (by tele phone) Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs U.S. Department of Transportation ( DOT )

Terri Williams (Designated Federal Official (DFO)) Director, Center for Organizational Excellence Federal Aviation Administration (F AA)

Regis Milan (Alternate DFO) Associate Director and Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs DOT

O THER P ERSONS P RESENT

Name Affiliation(s) Jan (Jay) Aul (by tele phone) FAA

Russ Bailey ALPA Bob Bergm an UPS James Brough (by telephone) FAA

Chris Brown United Airlines , Inc. (United) Jennifer Cavanaugh JetBlue Andrew Comparo Aviation Daily/Aviation Week
Ana Corbett (by telephone) FAA

Emily Dziedzic PAI Consulting
Christa Fornarotto DOT Jeffrey Goo dell JetBlue Patty Higginbotham United
Krist er Holliday Goodrich
Dean Hubbard TWU , AFL

- CIO
Robert Land JetBlue Bill Mosley DOT Rick Pyatt GoodrichFuture of Aviation Advisory Committee Labor and World

- class Workforce Subcommittee R ecord of Meeting

November 15, 2010 Communication Workers of America Washington, DC

3 B ACKGROUND AND W ELCOMING R EMARKS

This is the record of the fifth meeting of the Labor and World

- class Workforce Subcommittee of the FAAC, a F ederal advisory committee formed pursuant to and subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

Ms

. Patricia Friend

, S ubcommittee C hair

, AFA

- CWA , ca lled the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m

. She welcomed the s ubcommittee members and members of the public in attendance

.

Ms. Friend introduced Ms. Terri Williams, FAA, the DFO for the meeting, and asked her to summarize FACA requirements. Ms. Williams noted the meeting is conducted under FACA and outlined her responsibilities as DFO, including maintaining adherence to the agenda, keeping accurate minutes, and adjourning the meeting if necessary.

Ms. Williams noted meetings of the subcommittee are accessible to the public and stated interested
peop le have the opportunity to submit comments before each meeting either by email at faac@dot.gov or by submission to the regulatory docket at www.regulations.gov

. She added the min utes of each meeting will be made available both in the regulatory docket and on the FAAC Web site at http://www.dot.gov/faac

.

Ms. Williams read the formal statement required under FACA. She noted although the meetin g was open to the public and members of the public were attending the meeting , participation in the meeting was limited to subcommittee members, their alternates, and Federal officials. She added that only subcommittee members and their alternates were en titled to vote on subcommittee business. Ms. Williams then turned the meeting back over to Ms. Friend to open substantive discussion.

D ISCUSSION

Ms. Friend began the meeting by reminding the subcommittee members that the final FAAC meeting will be held on December 15, 2010 and all subcommittees must be ready to present their proposals. She stated the agenda for the current subcommittee meeting is to review the focus areas and determine if the subcommittee has reached consensus on the issues. She stated a ny issues that do not reach consensus will be included in the template for other areas of significant discussion. She notified the subcommittee there is a template for dissent, should any member choose to oppose a topic that has reached majority consensus

.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Ms. Friend stated Focus Area 1 is the STEM proposal. She stated the proposal has been revised to include two new sentences in the first paragraph , as well as footnotes cit ing statistical sources in the
p aper. She noted the removal of the statistic regarding Master of Business Administration graduates, per the discussion at the Los Angeles , California, FAAC meeting. Ms

. Friend noted the subcommittee has been in agreement on this issue from the beginning and the subcommittee members should be proud to put their names on it.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Labor and World

- class Workforce Subcommittee R ecord of Meeting

November 15, 2010 Communication Workers of America Washington, DC

4 Mr. David Barger, JetBlue, stated the STEM curriculum has been mentioned in various settings

, including The Wings Club, school systems, institutions of higher learning, and the National Business Aviation Association convention. He stated the Secretary of Transportation needs to help coordinate the efforts among these different venues to implement STEM education . Ms. Friend agreed and stated the two additional sentences in the first par agraph capture that sentiment.

Ms. Amy Corbett , FAA, stated experts in the field are addressing the issue of working more collaboratively to leverage resources . She stated there is substantial discussion between those involved with aviation and STEM educa tion to help create a more collaborative environment.

Ms. Friend asked if anyone else had any comments. With no response, Ms. Friend noted Focus Area 1, STEM Education, will move forward with full consensus.

State of Labor Management Relations

Ms. Friend moved the discussion to Focus Area 2, State of Labor Management Relations . Focus Area 2 urges the Secretary of Transportation to support and encourage the National Mediation Board (NMB) to adopt all recommendations in Dunlop II.

Mr. Bob Bergman, UPS, aske d if the subcommittee should revise the proposal to urge the NMB to adopt the recommendations in Dunlop II. He stated the proposal may be more effective if it is directed at the NMB, rather than involving the Secretary of Transportation . Mr

. Barger asked if the intent of the proposal is for the Secretary to take action, or to reinforce the proposal.

Ms. Friend stated the intent was for the Secretary of Transportation and the DOT to lend their weight by encouraging the NMB to act. She stated the NMB can choose not to listen; however, the Secretary’s status may have a positive influence on the NMB.

Mr. John Conley, TWU, stated after the presentation from Mr. Joshua Javits , Dispute Resolution Services, at the October 1, 2010 subcommittee meeting, the subco mmittee agreed with all the findings of his explanation of Dunlop II. Mr. Conley stated the Secretary of Transportation ’s significance and title would be beneficial to the NMB.

Ms. Christa Fornarotto, DOT , stated the Secretary of Transportation cannot for ce entities to change, but

can advocate for change . She added the proposal should advoca te for changes regarding the labor workforce

. Ms

. Ana McAhron

- Schulz, ALPA, stated the subcommittee is not asking the Secretary to implement Dunlop II; rather, the pr oposal is asking the Secretary to advocate helping the labor workforce issue.

Mr. Barger aske d how the NMB feels about this proposal. Mr. Bob Lekites, UPS, stated he had a conversation with the NMB . He noted the NMB believes they can handle this issue w ithout the support of the Secretary of Transportation . Mr. Lekites stated the NMB believes this proposal would neither hurt nor help them because they are already pursuing the issue.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Labor and World

- class Workforce Subcommittee R ecord of Meeting

November 15, 2010 Communication Workers of America Washington, DC

5 Ms. Friend stated the NMB is moving too slow, and the point of the propo sal is to urge immediate implementation of the recommendations in Dunlop II. Mr. Conley stated the subcommittee was in agreement on the importance of this issue without having a conversation with the NMB.

Ms. Thella Bowens, San Diego County Regional Airpo rt Authority , stated the first part of the recommendation urges the Secretary of Transportation to endorse Dunlop II. She stated if the NMB believes this proposal would not hurt them, the subcommittee should continue with the proposal. She stated the sec ond issue in the proposal deals with funding and resources for the NMB. She noted the Secretary cannot find funding for the NMB, so leaving this wording in the proposal is futile.

Ms. Friend noted the focus of all the proposal s is advocacy. She stated th e sub committee hopes to go on record and for the Secretary of Transportation to add his voice, so the NMB will expeditiously endorse and receive funding to implement Dunlop II . Ms. McAhron

- Schulz stated the subcommittee has recognized the problems with ne gotiations

, and this proposal urges the Secretary to support the things that will help the labor situation in the aviation industry.

Ms. Bowens stated the proposal currently looks like two separate ideas: advocacy for the implementation of Dunlop II

, and funding for the NMB. She stated the first idea is very clear in asking the Secretary of Transportation to advocate for the NMB to implement Dunlop II. She stated the subcommittee should revise the second idea to ask the Secretary to advocate for adequate NMB funding . Ms

. Friend agreed and revised the proposal to include advocacy wording.

Mr. Bergman asked, to whom is the Secretary of Transportation advocating the funding issue ? Ms. Bowens stated the Secretary will direct this issue to whoever is respons ible for funding the NMB. She stated it is not within the scope of the subcommittee to understand how the funding issue works; rather, the subcommittee should urge the Secretary to put pressure on the funding source

. She stated the Secretary must realize that without adequate NMB funding

, other entities within the aviation industry cannot operate properly.

Mr. Conley asked if it is necessary to include the funding portion of the proposal. He stated if Dunlop II is implemented, then funding, resources, an d staffing will need to be addressed

. Ms

. McAhron

- Schulz noted inclu ding the funding issue shows its importance and makes the proposal more effective.

Mr. Barger aske d if the funding issue should be included in the list of topics for the Labor Management Summit proposal. Ms. Friend prefer red to put the idea in both a Focus Area template and in the Labor Management Summit proposal . Ms. Friend stated the Labor Management Summit will not allow this
matter to be handled expeditiously, and the NMB needs to fo cus on moving it forward immediately.

Ms. Cynthia Egnotovich , Goodrich, stated if the subcommittee is comfortable with the proposal, they should move it forward as a Focus Area. She stated if the NMB had input on the proposal, they should have come forwar d with a formal statement. She added informal communication with the NMB should not sway the decision of the subcommittee.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Labor and World

- class Workforce Subcommittee R ecord of Meeting

November 15, 2010 Communication Workers of America Washington, DC

6 Mr. Lekites reiterated the conversation with the NMB was informal. He stated his support for the proposal, even after t he discussio n with the NMB. Ms. Friend noted th e concern is how much credence should be give n to an informal conversation. She stated the comments should not influence the subcommittee.

Mr. Rick Pyatt, Goodrich, stated issues occurring in the aviation and labor indu stries in the summer of 2000 impacted the traveling public . He stated the NMB needs to be properly funded so cases can move forward expeditiously. He added there is an interest for all stakeholders in aviation

, and the funding issue belongs in the recomm endation.

Ms. Friend thanked Mr. Pyatt for his insight. She re

- read the revisions in the proposal and asked if the subcommittee agree d with the changes in the wording. She stated the proposal wa s revised to emphasi ze advocacy of the issues. She stated s he will transfer this proposal to the Focus Area template.

Ms. Friend stated the subcommittee needs to submit all proposals to the DOT by November 22, 2010

. This will allow the DOT to sort through proposals, combine like ideas, and have packets to all FAA C members before the December 15, 2010

, FAAC meeting. Ms

. Friend aske d how the FAAC will determine which proposals have full support. Ms

. Fornarotto stated each subcommittee will (1) present their proposals at the FAAC meeting, (2) have an opportunity fo r discussion, and (3) present formal recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation on full consensus issues.

Workforce Management Summit

Ms. Friend moved the discussion to Focus Area 3, Workforce Management Summit. She noted there have been several r evisions since the Los Angele s , California, FAAC meeting, includ ing chang ing to an annual summit and eliminati ng a standing committee.

Mr. Conley stated he is interested in discussing the summit’s frequency. Ms

. Egnotovich stated annual ly seems to be more realistic than twice a year. Mr. Conley stated the whole notion of the summit is not convenience, rather the pointed nature of the discussions to be had. He expressed concern about not keeping the discussion alive and having issues get pushed to the sid e. He stated the summit should convene twice a year.

Ms. Bowens aske d about the summit s length and duration. Ms

. Friend noted the subcommittee has not yet discuss ed the details. She stated it could be one day

, with assignments on issues need ing continue d work. She stated the agenda would vary from summit to summit. Ms. Friend aske d of Mr

. Conley if once a year is too infrequent . Mr

. Conley responded, yes, one year is too long in between meetings.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Labor and World

- class Workforce Subcommittee R ecord of Meeting

November 15, 2010 Communication Workers of America Washington, DC

7 Ms. Bowens agreed with Mr. Conley and stated it takes t ime to build relationships and find common ground because of huge chasms in the industry. She stated this cannot be accomplished in one day, once a year. She added the summit’s success depend s upon what happens in between the meetings. Ms. Bowens commen ted the expected outcomes and goals must be determined to make the summit meaningful. She stated stakeholders in the industry must want to give up their time to convene. She added the summit may need to be more than one day and its importance cannot be f orgotten in between meetings.

Mr. Lekites stated UPS has an annual meeting , where the company discuss es high impact items such as labor, contracts, and negotiations. He stated it takes time to expedite the solutions to those items

, and part of the meeting is devoted to develop ing action plans for expectations of future meetings.

Ms. Egnotovich aske d how prescriptive the subcommittee should be regarding the nature of the summit. She stated the summit members may want to address the issues of length and dur ation on their own.
Mr. Barger stated the subcommittee must be careful not to load up the criteria and then have them fail

. He stated having one summit that never reoccurs would be a failure. He added the goals of the summit need to be meaningful to ensu re its continuation over time.

Ms. Friend suggested revisi ng the proposal to establish a summit within 6 months of the conclusion of the FAAC

, and thereafter held on a schedule determined by the first summit’s participants. Ms

. Fornarotto stated the DOT w ould have great difficulty in implementing the proposal within 6 months due to resources, staffing, and logistics. She stated if there is flexibility in the scheduling , it should be added to the proposal.

Mr. Conley reiterated his stance that a summit onc e a year loses power. He stated the point of the summit is to build relationships. Mr. Conley noted the need to repeatedly come together, tackle hard issues, and apply solutions to the industry.

Mr. Barger stated the issue is about sca ling time and havin g the summit continue through administrations. He stated the FAAC has already been together for almost one year and it goes by quickly. Ms

. Friend noted the subcommittee has met in person three times and twice on a teleconference. She stated the first t wo meetings were to get to know each other and have meaningful conversations. She added, regarding, the Workforce Management Summit, the participants may vary from year to year. She stated the proposal may be implemented initially as a summit

, but the su mmit would evolve into a semiannual conference.

Mr. Barger aske d whether the summit’s audience will include manufacturers and airports, or if it will be airline

- specific. Ms. Egnotovich aske d if the summit will address only workforce management issues,

or if it will be broader in scope

.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Labor and World

- class Workforce Subcommittee R ecord of Meeting

November 15, 2010 Communication Workers of America Washington, DC

8 Ms. Friend stated the summit’s agenda will include the issues of joint ventures, foreign repair, and other difficult topics to find common ground among airports, manufacturers, and airlines. Ms

. Egnotovich stated the summi t would not be limited to difficult issues, but would also highlight best practices within the industry.

Ms. McAhron

- Schulz stated the proposal sh ould be kept general to allow summit members to decide how to move forward. She stated the first meeting woul d be to identify issues

, and the agendas and summits could be determined from there.

Ms. Friend stated she would revise the proposal to delete the annual requirement and allow the participants to determine the agenda and frequency of the meetings moving fo rward. Mr

. Conley expressed his dissatisfaction with the revisions and stated the summit should meet semiannually.

Ms. Bowens stated twice a year seems frequent, but the subcommittee has met almost monthly and there are still issues not being addressed. She stated larger issues will take more time to reach consensus. She added it is difficult to see how once a year is beneficial for a divergent group of people to discuss difficult problems and challenges.

Ms. Friend aske d if the subcommittee should revis e the proposal to state the majority of the members suggest meeting twice a year. Mr

. Barger stated the language was fine before the last revision. He commented the participants should be empowered to determin e the frequency of meetings. He stated the a genda should reflect the participants’ decision about meeting frequency.

Ms. Friend noted the agenda will change as the issues facing the industry change. She stated within the last month, there has been a shift in security

, with attacks on cargo. She st ated new issues will continue to be introduced to the industry that will need to be addressed.

Mr. Lekites stated, from a schedule point of view, the summit must convene at least on c e a year , but summit members should be able to reconvene more frequently i f necessary. He stated frequency should not be mandated because it will change based on what is happening in the world. He suggested changing the proposal to state the summit should be held annually and as needed thereafter.

Ms. Egnotovich stated the sub committee is struggling with frequency, but the important part of the summit is the substance. She noted the need for the summit to convene within a certain amount of time ; however, summit participants should determine the subject, members, and frequency.

Ms. Friend stated the proposal is fairly open now and the summit will be an open meeting without specific representatives. She stated all industry professionals are welcome to participate. Mr

. Conley noted the initial intent was for all stakeholders to participate. He stated the Secretary of Transportation could convene the summit , which would encourage industry members to participate. He stated the summit would not have a sunset date and would continue to convene to discuss important issues affecting the aviation industry.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Labor and World

- class Workforce Subcommittee R ecord of Meeting

November 15, 2010 Communication Workers of America Washington, DC

9 Ms. Friend stated the proposal title could be changed to a semiannual aviation industry workforce conference. She stated the word “ summit ” evokes an idea of a onetime event. Mr

. Barger commented he still struggles with prescribing a semiannual meeting. He stated the conference needs to be beneficial for customers, employees, and stakeholders. He added it is not how often the summit meets, but how effective the summit becomes.

Ms. Fornarotto stated

, for practical purposes, it will take the DOT 9 months to formulate the first summit . Ms

. Friend stated the intent is not to create another committee with designated representatives. She stated the summit should be an open forum for workforce and management specifically. Ms

. Fornarotto stated, even though it is not a formal process, there are still logistics
to address.

Ms. Friend stated the subcommittee should replace the word “ annual ” with “ semiannual ” and leave the rest of the proposal as previously drafted. Mr. Bergman stated the d ate of the first summit could be set and the participants could determine future meeting dates.

Ms. Friend stated she would dislike see ing a group come together only to debat e the frequency and location of meetings. She stated if the summit is held semian nually in Washington

, DC, then the important issues can be addressed immediately. She noted there is nothing preventing the group from adjusting meetings according to the agendas. Ms. Friend s tated the proposal should suggest endors ing and implement ing a semiannual conference beginning in September 2011. With th is revision, the subcommittee reached consensus on the issue.

Incorporating Core Workers ’ Human Rights Conventions into International Labor Agreements

Ms. Friend moved the discussion to Focus Area 4, Incorporating Core Workers ’ Human Rights Conventions into International Labor Agreements. She stated the FAAC members heard a presentation on the topic at the Los Angeles , California, FAAC meeting. She stated the proposal is for the Administration to commit to the adherence of the core conventions

, and to include the conventions in open skies agreements entered into by the U nited S tates

. Ms. Friend noted the proposal is to include the conventions in all future agreements . She added the proposal sugg ests when the DOT reviews whether to grant antitrust agreements, they require a framework agreement committing parties to the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Core Conventions.

Ms. Friend noted the proposal refers to the core workers ’ human rights, since there is no common understanding of the ILO Core Conventions. She invited the subcommittee to ask questions or add comments to the discussion. Mr. Lekites expressed support for the ILO Core Conventions. He stated, from labor practice, organized la bor in foreign countries does not represent the integrity seen in the U nited S tates . In addition, h e stated there seems to be conflict between S tate Governments and F ederal G overnments concerning labor laws. He stated, fundamentally, rights for children do not apply to aviation

, and this issue needs to be addressed by the U.S. D epartment of Labor and U.S. Department of Justice , not the FAAC.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Labor and World

- class Workforce Subcommittee R ecord of Meeting

November 15, 2010 Communication Workers of America Washington, DC

10 Ms. Friend aske d if the reference to foreign countries was attributed to the second part of the proposal regarding antitrust agreements. Mr. Lekites stated he was referring to organizations us ing people from other countries that do not follow company standards. He stated when labor is misrepresented and employees are put in harm ’ s way, the ILO standards are not being followed . He aske d if there is a need for an overarching international agreement that conflicts with S tate and F ederal laws.

Ms. Friend stated the DOT grants antitrust immunity and has input into open skies agreements. Mr

. Lekites clarified his question by inquiring what the ILO brings to the open skies agreements.

Mr. Barger stated the U nited S tates has only ratified two of the eight ILO Core Conventions. He stated this proposal will be difficult to implement because the U nited S tates has not yet ratif ied all the conventions. Ms. Friend stated

, although the conventions have not been ratified, the United States is compl ying with them . She stated asking others to comply is not out of line.

Mr. Dean Hubbard, TWU, stated there is concern with the conflict s arising from S tate law, mainly with public sector workers outside of aviation. He stated there is some conflict with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), but there are no concerns with the Railway Labor Act (RLA). He added there are no conflicts be tween the ILO Core Conventions and the RLA law s within the U nited S tates

. Ms. Friend reiterated there have been allegations of conflict with the NLRA, but there are no conflicts with the RLA ( the act under discuss ion at this meeting ) . Mr. Hubbard aske d if Mr

. Lekites is confusing the ILO with some other organization. Ms. Friend stated Mr. Lekites is concerned with the reference to the frame agreements with global union federations, which are not the ILO.

Ms

. Friend clarified the International Transport Workers Federation is not associated with the ILO. She stated the ILO organizes standards

, which member countries adopt and implement. She stated the ILO does not organize workers, rather they issue policy. She added these Core Conventions do not confli ct with U

. S

. labor laws.

Mr. Lekites stated it is illegal to allow supervisors to be part of organized labor. Mr

. Hubbard clarified that every country has its own labor laws, including the extent to which supervisors can or cannot be part of unions. He s tated a country’s laws govern work er s who operate within that country. Mr. Hubbard also stated the question of joining a union falls under the freedom of association, one of the ILO’s C ore C onventions. He noted some have looked at allegations that superv isors who join a union are not called supervisors. He stated there was a recent ILO decision regarding the supervisory status of nurses

, and the ILO felt the NLRA was consistent with the freedom of association. He commented it would be in correct to state that if an organization agrees to comply with the Core Conventions , then top management would be forced to join a union.

Mr. Lekites aske d what would happen if the decision was otherwise. Mr. Hubbard stated the ILO would issue a recommendation for the U n ited S tates to evaluate the situation. He noted the U nited S tates does not usually change the law and the ILO does not have the power to force changes. Mr. Lekites stated the ILO involvement is a consultative process to help labor

, management , and
govern ments see what makes sense for the country.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Labor and World

- class Workforce Subcommittee R ecord of Meeting

November 15, 2010 Communication Workers of America Washington, DC

11 Mr. Bergman stated it is troubling the subcommittee is asking that the ILO Core Conventions be included in open skies agreements when the U nited S tates has not yet ratified all eight conventions

. Ms

. Egnotovich stated the issue is complicated and she is uncomfortable with the proposal since none of the subcommittee members are experts in the area. She aske d how the parties are held accountable in adhering to the ILO Core Conventions.

Ms. Friend stated the organi zations who are party to an open skies agreement ensu re adherence to the agreement. She stated any violation of the agreement would make it null and void. Ms

. Egnotovich stated that seems difficult because the eight conventions are so broad in scope. Sh e aske d how oversight would be conducted.

Ms. Bowens stated if the U nited S tates has not sanctioned these conventions, then the DOT would be unable to enforce them in an agreement. She stated the subcommittee is asking the DOT to do something the F ederal G overnment has not done yet.

Ms. Friend stated there is an issue of moral authority in incorporating adherence to the yet unratified ILO Core Conventions. She noted there is also a legal authority which lies in the ability to negotiate a trade agreement.

Ms. Bowens stated her concern applies to both issues. She asked if the DOT can enforce something the F ederal G overnment has not yet adopted. She stated there is a conflict in a country adher ing to a convention to which the U nited S tates does not legally adhere. Ms. Friend stated this issue is not part of a legal debate within trade agreement negotiations; rather, it is about the negotiation itself

. Ms. Bowens disagreed with Ms. Friend and stated the U nited S tates cannot ask another country to do somethin g the U nited S tates has not sanctioned. Ms. Bowens stated the subcommittee could modify the proposal and ask the DOT to advocate that the government support the ILO Core Conventions

. This would allow the government to incorporate the conventions into fut ure negotiations.

Ms. McAhron

- Schulz stated some of the Core Conventions have not been ratified due to S tate laws. She stated, while the Core Conventions have not been ratified, the U nited S tates still complies with the conventions. She noted there are c ountries that do not comply with any conventions , which does not allow for a level playing field. Ms. McAhron

- Schulz stated there must be minimum labor standards regarding child labor and freedom of association.

Mr. Barger suggested this proposal become a point/counterpoint argument since the moral issue seems to be dividing the subcommittee. Ms. Friend suggested this issue be put through as a proposal by a minority of the subcommittee

, with the others filing dissents. Mr. Bergman noted the dissent shoul d be used if only one subcommittee member disagrees with a proposal.

Ms. Bowens stated the subcommittee members agree that

, morally, this proposal is something every organization should live up to. She stated from a legal perspective, there is conflict ab out putting the Secretary of Transportation in a position to support the ILO Core Conventions when they have not been ratified in the United States

.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Labor and World

- class Workforce Subcommittee R ecord of Meeting

November 15, 2010 Communication Workers of America Washington, DC

12 Ms. Friend stated she agrees with the moral authority issue of insisting on something the U nited S tates has not ratified . However, she does not understand why the U nited S tates would not have the legal authority to put any condition into a trade agreement. Ms. Friend stated the ILO Core Conventions have never been included in a trade agreement

, and the subcom mittee has brought the topic up because it should be part of the agreements. She commented the U nited S tates is already engaged in agreements with countries with no protection for workers. She stated it is a humanitarian and moral issue, and raises the i ssue of a level playing field. She aske d how the U nited S tates can compete with a country that does not give their workers any rights.

Mr. Pyatt stated , regarding moral authority, war is morally abhorr ent , but the world enters into it because of governmen t interests. He stated if the U nited S tates was willing, it would adopt and incorporate the ILO Core Conventions. Ms. Friend stated the U nited S tates is not willing, which is why the subcommittee must raise the issue. She stated the issue raises the que stion of competition on a global level playing field.

Ms. Egnotovich asked why the United States has ratified only two of the eight ILO Core Conventions. Ms

. Friend stated she does not know, but in addition to not being ratified, the other six conventions have not been submitted. She stated the ILO Core Conventions are simil ar to International Civil Aviation O rganization standards, as both are guidance measures. She stated in negotiating trade agreements with countries that have no labor protection, it i s common sense to request those countries adhere to the Core Conventions so their workers are not disadvantaged.

Mr. Barger reiterated this proposal may be better suited for a point/counterpoint argument. Ms

. McAhron

- Schulz suggested the proposal should b e amended to first require review by the Department of Labor regarding the legality of requiring adherence to ILO core conventions of other countries when the US does not adhere to all conventions. And if the Labor Department determined there was no legal issue, then the recommendation could be implemented.

Mr. Conley stated the proposal should encourage the Administration to advocate and promote adherence to the ILO Core Conventions. Mr

. Bergman stated the issue of promoting adherence still seems to be a conflict. Ms

. Friend stated, although the Core Conventions have not been ratified, they are still followed

.

Ms. Bowens aske d about accompanying jurisprudence. Mr. Hubbard stated when a party agrees a country is violating an agreement, the party can fi le a complaint. He explained the freedom of association recommendations will be applied to the situation to determine an appropriate course of behavior, as dictated by community consensus.
Ms. Egnotovich aske d

, if no one enforces these Core Conventions, t hen what is accomplished in putting the conventions into agreements ? Mr. Hubbard explained the ILO Core Conventions do not contain specifics; rather, the conventions set up a process for discussion when a country thinks there is a problem. He stated if t he Core Conventions are put into agreements, then a process is set up to reach an agreement if one party thinks the agreement is being broken.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Labor and World

- class Workforce Subcommittee R ecord of Meeting

November 15, 2010 Communication Workers of America Washington, DC

13 Ms. Friend aske d if this process would lead to litigation. She stated if the agreement is broken, the parties wo uld follow the dispute resolution process set forth in the contract (similar to what is done in other contracts) . Mr

. Hubbard stated the dispute resolution mechanisms are very open

- ended. He stated the open skies agreements allow for discussion

, rather t han litigation.

Mr. Russ Bailey, ALPA, stated the dispute resolution mechanisms in multilateral trade agreements are the same as collective bargaining agreements under the RLA. He commented it would not lead to traditional litigation in court. He also st ated there are processes set up to negotiate, mediate, and arbitrate. Mr. Bailey noted there are representatives from both sides that work to avoid arbitration

, and the U nited S tates has been involved in only three arbitrations in the last 25 years. He s tated if the language in an agreement calls for adherence to the ILO Core Conventions, then the conventions still have meaning. He stated there is no strict enforcement, but there is still a requirement to adhere to the principles. Mr. Bailey explained t here is a fundamental point to adhering to the ILO Core Conventions

, and there should be a requirement to have some process for collective bargaining.

Ms. Friend thanked Mr. Bailey for the clarification. She stated the subcommittee has not come any closer to consensus , with three subcommittee members in favor and four members against. She aske d the DOT how the subcommittee should proceed. Ms

. Fornarotto stated

, since the subcommittee is split, the best template to use is the other topics of significant d iscussion. She explained the dissent form is only used if one subcommittee member disagrees with the proposal.

The subcommittee agreed to remove this topic as a Focus Area proposal, draft a point/counterpoint argument, and submit the proposal as a topic o f Other Significant Discussion

.
Other Significant Discussion Ms. Friend stated the DOT has provided each subcommitt ee with a template called Other Significant Discussion

. She stated the subcommittee should use the template for discussions that have not re ached consensus. She stated the subcommittee has already discussed and reported on several topics and must reach a decision on these items. She stated after the subcommittee finaliz es the topics, the papers will need to be reduced to paragraph summaries and should be submitted to her by November 18, 2010.

Ms. Friend stated the first issue is joint ventures. Ms. McAhron

- Schulz stated the Subcommittee on Competitiveness and Viability is addressing this topic

. Ms

. Friend stated if th is subcommittee does no t address the labor aspect of joint ventures, then a proposal will need to be drafted by a member of this subcommittee.

Mr. Bergman stated there are papers on foreign repair stations

, submitted by Goodrich and TWU

, for a point/counterpoint argument. Ms. F riend stated AFA and UPS have addressed foreign ownership. Mr

. Bergman stated UPS will respond to the AFA point by November 18, 2010. Ms

. Friend noted TWU and JetBlue have addressed the issue of job outsourcing. Mr

. Barger stated the paper needs to be

r eviewed and summarized

.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Labor and World

- class Workforce Subcommittee R ecord of Meeting

November 15, 2010 Communication Workers of America Washington, DC

14 Ms. Friend stated UPS, ALPA, and JetBlue have addressed code

- sharing and fees for departure. Ms

. Friend aske d if this proposal should be excluded because it has been addressed in the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administrati on Extension Act of 2010

, Pub. L. No. 111

- 216 . The subcommittee agreed to exclude this topic from the proposal.

Ms. Friend stated UPS, ALPA, and JetBlue have addressed fitness standards for new entrants. Ms

. Friend stated the DOT believes they already mo nitor a company’s fitness. Mr. Barger stated a

concern about being careful regarding this proposal. Ms

. McAhron

- Schulz stated the standards and
statu t es should be reviewed and updated. She noted the Subcommittee on Competitiveness and Viability started to have this discussion, but did not follow through with it.

Ms. Friend stated she would look at the initial submission because it s focus was on the initial entry, whereas the DOT focuses on the ongoing fitness review. Ms

. McAhron

- Schulz emphasized the
st andards have been the same for the last 30 years. She stated the standards need to be updated for both startups and ongoing entities. Ms. Friend agreed the proposal should be about the accuracy of fitness standards for entry. She stated failure of new c ompanies should not occur . She added JetBlue and ALPA will have an opportunity to review and revise fitness standards before November 18, 2010.

Ms. Friend stated the topic of updating bankruptcy legislation

, as it applies to the airline industry

, is
outst anding. She stated the proposal

, as written, is currently out

- of

- date. She noted the proposal asks subcommittee members to support two pieces of legislation that will have to be reintroduced in the new Congress . She stated the subcommittee needs to rewr ite the proposal to take out th e specific bill references

. Ms. Friend aske d the subcommittee ’s position on this issue. Mr

. Barger noted A L PA was going to issue a statement on the issue , and JetBlue will issue a counterpoint to their argument. Ms

. McAhro n

- Schulz agreed to revise the proposal to alter the legislation numbers.

Ms. Bowens aske d if these topics will be discussed at the Workforce Management Conference. Ms

. Friend stated these issues will be going to the DOT in the template for other significa nt discussions. She aske d if there are any other topics that need to be discussed. The subcommittee did
not broach any new topics. Ms. Friend reviewed the final six topics of significant disc ussion: foreign repair stations; foreign ownership of U

. S

. co mpanies; job outsourcing; fitness standards for new
entrants ; updating bankruptcy legislation as it applies to the airline industry; and ILO Core Conventions.

C LOSING R EMARKS AND A DMINISTRATIVE M ATTERS

The subcommittee members agre ed to send non

- consensus paper revisions to Ms. Friend by November 18 , 2010. Ms. Friend stated the next FAAC meeting will be on December 15, 2010, in Washington

, DC

.
Ms. Williams requested that the subcommittee ratify the minutes from the September 23, 2010

, meeting and the Octob er 1, 2010 , meeting . Ms

. Friend requested a motion to approve the minutes. The

m otion was approved and the minutes were ratified.Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Labor and World

- class Workforce Subcommittee R ecord of Meeting

November 15, 2010 Communication Workers of America Washington, DC

15 A DJOURNMENT

Ms

. Williams solicited a motion for adjournment. On motion, duly seconded and approved by the majority of the s ubcommittee members present, the meeting was adjourned.

The meeting adjourned at 2: 18 p.m

. I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are accurate and complete.

Approved by: _______________________

_____________________ Terri Williams

, Designated Federal Official

Dated: _______________________

___________________________

Ratified on: _______

_______________________________________