In the Matter of the

Application of the

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO

alleging a representation dispute pursuant to Section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act, as amended

involving employees of

AMERICAN TRANS AIR, INC.

28 NMB No. 34

CASE NO. R-6757

FINDINGS UPON

INVESTIGATION- ORDER

December 21, 2000

This decision resolves election interference allegations filed by the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (IAM or Organization). For the reasons below, the National Mediation Board (Board) finds that laboratory conditions required for a fair election were tainted and orders a re-run election.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 9, 2000, IAM filed an application with the Board pursuant to the Railway Labor Act (Act), as amended, 45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth, alleging a representation dispute involving Fleet Service Employees of American Trans Air, Inc. (ATA or Carrier). At the time the application was received, these employees were unrepresented.

The Board docketed this case as NMB Case No. R-6757 and assigned Benetta M. Mansfield to investigate. On June 27, 2000, the Board found a dispute existed and authorized an election. Ballots were mailed on July 12, 2000, and the count occurred August 9, 2000. The results of the count were that of 224 eligible voters, 106 cast valid votes for representation.1 This was less than the majority required for Board certification. On August 10, 2000, the Board dismissed the IAM's application. American Trans Air, Inc., 27 NMB 531 (2000).

On August 18, 2000, the IAM filed election interference allegations pursuant to the Board's Representation Manual (Manual), Section 14.0. On August 21, 2000, the Carrier filed a motion to dismiss the IAM's allegations of interference claiming the Carrier was not properly served. The IAM responded to the Carrier's motion on August 23, 2000. On September 5, 2000, the Carrier filed its response to the IAM's allegations of interference.

On September 7, 2000, the Board denied the Carrier's motion to dismiss and notified the participants that the IAM's allegations stated a prima facie case that laboratory conditions were tainted and the Board would conduct further investigation. The Board established a schedule for filing further submissions on the interference issue.

The IAM supplemented its initial filing on September 26, 2000, and the Carrier filed its response on October 10, 2000. The Organization's rebuttal was filed on October 17, 2000, and ATA's surrebuttal was filed on October 24, 2000.

From November 1 to 3, 2000, Investigator Mansfield and Mediator Zachery Jones conducted on-site investigations at Midway (MDW) and Indianapolis (IND) airports. During the course of the investigation, the Board took statements from over 40 witnesses.

ISSUE

Did ATA's actions taint the laboratory conditions the Board requires for a fair election?

CONTENTIONS

IAM

The IAM contends that the totality of ATA's conduct during the election tainted laboratory conditions. The IAM asserts that ATA conducted a pervasive anti-union campaign by granting a general wage increase on the day the Board mailed the ballots; holding a series of mandatory small group and one-on-one meetings in which employees were provided with misleading and derogatory information about union representation; threatening employees; and conducting employee surveillance.

The IAM contends that laboratory conditions attached no later than May 19, 2000, when IAM organizers approached two men in ATA uniforms and asked them to sign union cards. According to the IAM, the men advised the organizers that they were ATA supervisors.

The IAM alleges that the Carrier interfered with employees' free choice by announcing a general wage increase and shift differentials the same day the ballots were mailed. The IAM states that this increase was deliberately timed to affect the election outcome. The IAM further contends that this increase was not planned or part of a historic pattern and was not based on compelling business justifications.

The IAM also contends that the Carrier held a series of mandatory group and one-on-one meetings where Carrier officials provided misleading and inaccurate information about the IAM. Finally, the IAM states that Carrier supervisors threatened union supporters and improperly monitored employee conversations.

The Organization requests that the Board conduct a re-run election using a "Laker" ballot.

ATA

The Carrier denies interfering with the election. ATA asserts that it did not learn of the IAM's organizing campaign until the IAM filed an application with the Board on June 9, 2000. Therefore, laboratory conditions did not attach until June 9, 2000. The Carrier also asserts that the Organization has not submitted evidence sufficient to warrant a finding of election interference.

ATA denies that the wage increase interfered with the election. ATA states that the wage increase was system-wide and planned at least seven months prior to the laboratory period. ATA contends that the planned increase was necessary due to extremely high attrition rates among Fleet Service Employees.

ATA states that any meetings ATA conducted were voluntary shift briefings and the statements made in those meetings were accurate. ATA contends that its management officials never held mandatory group or one-on-one meetings. The Carrier denies threatening any employee.

The Carrier states that it did not conduct surveillance of ATA employees. ATA asserts that its supervisors were specifically trained to avoid certain conduct, such as surveillance, during union campaigns. Moreover, the Carrier contends that the incident cited by the IAM does not constitute system-wide surveillance.

ATA requests that the Board dismiss the IAM's allegations of interference. Furthermore, ATA argues that if the Board should order a re-run election, a "Laker" ballot is not warranted.

FINDINGS OF LAW

Determination of the issues in this case is governed by the Railway Labor Act, as amended, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-188. Accordingly, the Board finds as follows:

I.

American Trans Air, Inc. is a common carrier by air as defined in 45 U.S.C. § 181 of the Act.

II.

The IAM is a labor organization and/or representative as provided by 45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth, of the Act.

III.

45 U.S.C. § 152, Third, provides in part: "Representatives . . . shall be designated . . . without interference, influence, or coercion . . . ."

IV.

45 U.S.C. § 152, Fourth, gives employees subject to its provisions, "the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class for the purposes of this chapter." This section also provides as follows:

No carrier, its officers, or agents shall deny or in any way question the right of its employees to join, organize, or assist in organizing the labor organization of their choice, and it shall be unlawful for any carrier to interfere in any way with the organization of its employees . . . or to influence or coerce employees in an effort to induce them to join or remain or not to join or remain members of any labor organization . . . .

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I.

Background

Prior to April 2000, ATA's fleet service work at MDW was contracted to the Signature Flight Support Corporation (Signature). In April 2000, the Carrier hired its own Fleet Service Employees at MDW with a starting date of May 1, 2000. Many of the employees hired by ATA were former Signature employees. Signature employees are IAM-represented. ATA had Fleet Service Employees at IND for years.

II.

The Laboratory Period

The IAM began organizing the Fleet Service Employees at IND in April. Randy Lynch, the IAM organizer who worked primarily at IND, stated, "that the organizing efforts commenced about April 15, when I met [with a group of employees]." Lynch stated that several Fleet Service Employees advised him that their immediate supervisors were aware of the organizing and supported the employees' efforts. Several IND Fleet Service Employees stated that they were first approached to sign union cards in April. One of the IND customer service supervisors stated that he "first became aware of the IAM during middle to late April or May." One of the IND fleet service supervisors stated that he was aware of the IAM's organizing campaign prior to Memorial Day 2000. The IAM submitted a declaration from an employee stating, "[b]eginning in the spring of 2000, ramp service employees at Indianapolis began openly to distribute union authorization cards and our supervisors were aware of that fact."

At MDW, the organizing campaign also began in April, prior to the Signature employees moving over to work for ATA. IAM organizers Gil Palmer and Randy Lynch stated that on May 19, 2000, they were speaking with ATA employees in the smoking area outside the MDW terminal. They were approaching all ATA employees in ramp uniforms. Palmer and Lynch stated that they approached two ATA employees, introduced themselves, and asked the employees to sign authorization cards. The employees responded that they were supervisors, so they did not think they could sign the cards. Several MDW employees, including two MDW fleet service supervisors, stated that they were told by Fleet Service Employees that the IAM was there organizing the employees in late April or early May.

Stephen Ogletree, MDW Ramp Manager until June 1, 2000, stated that he first learned of the IAM's organizing drive in mid- April 2000. Also in April, several Fleet Service Employees told Ogletree that IAM representatives were on the premises.

Richard Meyer, Jr., ATA Vice President of Human Resources, stated, "[b]ecause the former Signature (now current ATA) Fleet Service Employees had been represented by the IAM, the Company anticipated that at some point the IAM would try to organize this group." Meyer also stated that ATA was surprised that the IAM began organizing so quickly.

III.

Pay Increase and Shift Differential

On July 12, 2000, the date the NMB mailed the ballots, ATA announced a pay increase of $1-an-hour for MDW customer service, reservations sales, and Fleet Service Employees and IND Fleet Service Employees. The pay increase was scheduled to take effect August 5, 2000. Customer service, reservation sales, and Fleet Service Employees last received a pay raise in November 1998.

In October 1999, Joe Zurenko, Director, Reservations, issued an internal memorandum to Jacque La Vista, Vice President, Customer Service, recommending an 80-cent-an-hour wage increase for IND reservation sales agents to match the pay rate offered at MDW. In November 1999, Laura Bodenberg, Human Resource Line Representative for Stations, and Jayna Wagner, Human Resource Line Representative for Reservations, sent an internal memorandum to Meyer calculating the effect of an 80-cent-an-hour increase for reservations, customer service, and Fleet Service Employees system-wide. The figures were based on a January 1, 2000, implementation date. According to Meyer, the station managers discussed the attrition problem at their quarterly meeting in February 2000. Meyer states that the station managers discussed possible solutions, including the proposed 80-cent-an-hour wage increase.

Meyer states that on April 6, 2000, Megan Fowler, Director of Human Resources, met with Corey Grannemann, Director of Stations, to discuss the high attrition rates of reservations, customer service and Fleet Service Employees. Grannemann "noted" that the last pay increase was in November 1998. According to Fowler, she met with Meyer on May 9, 12, 22, and June 6, 2000, to discuss "among other issues, the cost implications of the pay increases for the reservations agents, customer service agents and fleet service agents and a scale increase for the maintenance employees, which had been in the planning stages and communicated to maintenance employees."

According to Meyer, on May 12, 2000, Regional Manager Joe DeKasha proposed a wage increase for Las Vegas, Nevada, customer service agents. DeKasha stated that ATA must implement a pay increase in order to attract qualified customer service agents. DeKasha did not propose an amount. On May 16, 2000, DeKasha proposed a wage increase for San Francisco customer service agents, noting that the living wage ordinance would require ATA to pay $9-an-hour beginning October 1, 2000. DeKasha issued an internal memorandum on May 18, 2000, advising Grannemann to implement the proposed $1-an-hour wage increase for customer service agents in Las Vegas and Detroit that DeKasha had proposed in his budget.

On May 31, 2000, Meyer met with Bodenberg to discuss the wage increase proposal submitted by Grannemann. Bodenberg and Meyers met again on June 20, 2000, to discuss the same issues. Meyers also stated that Grannemann submitted a cost analysis for system-wide pay increases on June 30, 2000. According to Meyer, final approval for the wage increase occurred on July 10, 2000, and the employees were informed of this increase on July 12, 2000.

On July 12, 2000, the Carrier announced the following wage increases for MDW-based Fleet Service Employees:

Starting Pay	6 months	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3

$9	$9.25	$9.50	$10	$10.50

MDW customer service and reservation sales agents received the following wage increases:

Starting Pay	6 months	Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

$9	$9.25	$9.50 $10 $10.50 70-cent-an- hour (increase

to base pay)

IND Fleet Service Employees received the following wage increase:

Starting Pay 6 months Year 1 Year 2 Year 3	Year 4

$8.50	$8.75	$9 $9.50 $10 $1 (increase to

base pay)

Fleet Service Employees received a pay increase of $1-an-hour, twenty percent higher than the one previously proposed by Zurenko's memo. The following shift differentials program for hourly Fleet Service Employees was also implemented:

Second shift (12:01 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.): 30 cents per hour.

Third shift (8:01 p.m. to 3:59 a.m.): 40 cents per hour.

There is no evidence that shift differentials were planned.

With little exception, most employees and supervisors interviewed were surprised by both the amount and the timing of the pay raise. Many of the customer service agents interviewed at MDW and IND stated there was some discussion of a possible raise. In IND, customer service agents stated that they had heard about a "possible raise" one week before the memo. At MDW, customer service agents stated that they discussed a possible raise in a monthly meeting with MDW Station Manager Mark Costa. At the meeting, Costa stated that a raise was "under consideration." They had never discussed such a large raise or expected the raise to be so soon. Among customer service agents, it was widely believed that the raise was timed to influence the union election among the Fleet Service Employees. Several customer service agents stated that the last raise was in November 1998, just when the customer service agents were attempting to organize a union at ATA. One customer service agent stated that it is common talk among the customer service agents that "anytime there is talk of a union-ATA gives us a raise."

A former Signature employee stated that ATA had advised Signature employees that they would start at $8-an-hour with a 30 cent increase after six months. Only one of the fleet service supervisors interviewed had heard that there would be a raise. Another employee stated that IND Fleet Service Employees had been trying unsuccessfully to get a pay raise since 1999. This individual stated, "[i]n the spring, the fleet service agents decided to seek union representation because our attempts to obtain increases through Human Resources proved fruitless."

Former MDW Ramp Supervisor Ogletree stated that he was unaware of any planned pay raise but opined that the pay raise was "because the union was coming in."

Several Fleet Service Employees stated that the pay raise definitely influenced how people voted. An IND Fleet Service Employee stated, "[s]ome employees told me that since they were making more money that they would not vote."

IV.

Carrier Meetings

Several employees provided statements submitted by the IAM regarding meetings held during the laboratory period.

According to one individual, at a meeting, Paul Verdi, IND Station Manager, "told us that we would regret it if we voted yes." Another individual stated,

In the meeting Mr. Verdi told the Ramp Dayshift Employees that if they went with the IAM union - the company could drag contract negotiations from 20 months to 72 months. He also stated that all employees would have to pay dues during the time period. He also stated that the union could lay you off if you signed with them. He then just started degrading the union on every aspect for about 20-25 minutes. This was a mandatory meeting for all dayshift to attend.

Another individual stated,

[P]aul Verdi . . . held a Mandatory meeting in the breakroom where he again openly denounced the union saying that it would only make the employees lose money and that the contract negotiations would last [a] minimum of 72 months and that during this time we would all be paying dues. Some of the employees who were in the breakroom for that meeting felt trapped by Mr. Verdi.

A third individual stated, "Ramp Manager Paul Verdi also had a mandatory meeting where he did nothing but bad mouth the union and everyone involved in it."

In response to these allegations, ATA provided declarations from Mark Costa, MDW Station Manager, and William Merda, MDW Ramp Manager. Both Costa and Merda stated that they never held any mandatory group or one-on-one meetings with Fleet Service Employees regarding the IAM. Costa also stated,

As a general practice, we do not hold mandatory meetings at the MDW station in part due to the flex scheduling of many of our employees. Mandatory meetings tend to conflict with the personal schedules of our employees, therefore, making it too difficult or impossible for our employees to attend. All staff level station meetings held for any reason are completely voluntary.

During the interviews, every employee questioned denied that the meeting with Verdi was mandatory. In fact, all the Fleet Service Employees stated that due to the nature of the work, there are no mandatory meetings. The employees also denied being threatened by Verdi, Merda, Costa, or other supervisors. The majority of the employees interviewed stated that they were told to vote however they thought was best. Merda and Costa recall employees asking them specific questions about the IAM and unions in general.

V.

Threats

Several witnesses provided statements that Carrier officials made comments concerning the consequences of a pro-union vote. One individual stated,

[The Carrier was] telling new and old employees that they would have to pay dues right away and that it would take anywhere from 3-5 years to get a contract and that during this process that anyone on the ramp could be replaced at anytime and that the union couldn't do anything about it. They openly would get an employee who could be easily scared to change a vote in a corner either in the base operations office or the employee breakroom and scare them by telling them that by voting yes could end their career at American Trans Air. They would then tell them that they would either be laid off or that they could be fired for no reason by the IAM if they got voted in.

Another employee reported an incident in which Merda approached him and said, "[a]re you backin [sic] the union . . . you better be very careful." After this incident, the individual stated, "I feared for my job." Merda denied making this remark and stated he never "cornered, threatened or interrogated" any employee regarding the IAM.

Most employees during the interviews characterized these conversations differently. For example, one MDW fleet service agent stated, "[t]hey [managers] would talk about what ATA can offer." Another MDW fleet service agent stated that one of her supervisors said it would not be good to have a union, it would not help them, and the union just wanted their money. She also recalled another supervisor telling some employees that a union would not help them. But even these employees stated that the conversations were casual and not coercive or threatening.

In IND, Verdi held four meetings with the Fleet Service Employees. One Fleet Service Employee described Verdi's speech as follows: "Verdi said 'once a union is voted in our privileges will cease, i.e., bonuses, party invitations.' He said that raises would not be forthcoming." Another IND Fleet Service Employee described Verdi as stating, "the union is easy to vote in and difficult to vote out, but did not pressure the Fleet Service employees." Other IND employees agreed that they were not pressured or threatened.

Verdi stated that at these meetings, "	I discussed part-time workers and the length of time for ratification. The impact of the union on part-time and historical information into how long it took to ratify the contract. And the difference in benefits between full-time and part-time workers."

VI.

Surveillance

The IAM provided a statement from an individual recounting an incident where Merda approached employees speaking with an IAM representative and said, "I'm checking to see if your [sic] lying to these people." The individual then states that Merda went inside and watched the employees through a window.

Most organizing activity took place in the "smoking area." This is an area outside the terminal where employees smoke. The area is visible from inside the terminal.

IAM organizer Palmer stated that Merda came outside to the smoking area and told Palmer that Merda was just checking on what IAM was "telling people." Palmer told Merda he was welcome to stay and listen. Merda stated that while at times he looked through the glass to find certain employees for work reasons, he never conducted surveillance and did not instruct his supervisors or managers to conduct surveillance.

DISCUSSION

I.

During election campaigns, a carrier must act in a manner that does not influence, interfere, or coerce the employees' selection of a collective bargaining representative. Metroflight, Inc., 13 NMB 284 (1986). When considering whether employees' freedom of choice of a collective bargaining representative has been impaired, the Board examines the totality of the circumstances as established through its investigation. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 25 NMB 197 (1998); Evergreen International Airlines, 20 NMB 675 (1993); America West Airlines, Inc., 17 NMB

79 (1990). As the United States Supreme Court states in Texas & New Orleans Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, 281 U.S. 548, 568 (1930):

The meaning of the word 'influence' [in Section 2, Ninth] may be gathered from the context . . . . The use of the word is not to be taken as interdicting the normal relations and innocent communications which are a part of all friendly intercourse, albeit between employer and employee. 'Influence' in this context plainly means pressure, the use of the authority or power of either party to induce action by the other in derogation of what the statute calls 'self- organization.'

Under Section 2, Ninth, of the Act, the Board has broad discretion to tailor its investigation to the facts and circumstances of each case. Midway Airlines Corp., 26 NMB 41 (1998); Petroleum Helicopters, above; Florida East Coast Railway Co., 17 NMB 177 (1990).

II.

In Key Airlines, 16 NMB 296, 310 (1989), the Board held that laboratory conditions must be maintained from the date the carrier becomes aware of the organizing drive. See also Midway Airlines, above; Petroleum Helicopters, above; America West, above at 98.

The record established that ATA's Fleet Service Employees contacted the IAM in the spring of 2000. The IAM's organizing efforts were open and well-known. Ramp Manager Ogletree stated that he learned of the IAM's organizing drive in mid-April 2000. Moreover, the IAM presented evidence that on May 19, 2000, it attempted to get two MDW supervisors to sign A-cards.

The Board concludes that the laboratory conditions attached by May 1, 2000, the date Signature employees began working at ATA. The Board notes that Ogletree was a management official and was aware of the campaign prior to the Signature employees' move to ATA. Therefore, the laboratory conditions had to be maintained after May 1, 2000.

III.

Pay Increase and Shift Differential

Changes in working conditions during the laboratory period may taint laboratory conditions, except if the changes were planned before the laboratory conditions attached, or there is "clear and convincing evidence of a compelling business justification." Continental Airlines, Inc./Continental Express, Inc., 27 NMB 463 (2000); Air Logistics, L.L.C., 27 NMB 385 (2000); American Airlines, Inc., 26 NMB 412 (1999).

The Board has found interference where the carrier grants or withholds benefits in order to influence the outcome of a representation dispute. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 25 NMB 197 (1998); Wisconsin Central Ltd./Fox Valley & Western Ltd., 24 NMB 64, 104 (1996); Evergreen International Airlines, 20 NMB 675 (1993); Key Airlines, 16 NMB 296 (1989). The Carrier states that the increases covered all the customer service and reservation agents nationwide, not only 200 Fleet Service Employees located at MDW and IND. The fact that the increases covered a wider group of employees does not insulate the Carrier against interference allegations.

Pay increases were suggested in late 1999 but serious discussions about a pay raise, including the $1-an-hour increase in some locations, began in May 2000.

ATA submitted evidence showing that the attrition rate for customer service agents increased from 42% to 54.51% in 1999 and decreased to 48.2% as of July 2000. ATA also submitted evidence showing that the attrition rate for reservations agents decreased from 63% to 57.51% and then dramatically increased to 84.45% as of July 2000. Although the Carrier included fleet service agents with customer service agents, the evidence regarding Fleet Service Employees' attrition rates is inconclusive.

The employees did not expect the amount or the timing of the increase, and the prior increase coincided with organizing efforts by the customer service agents. Although the Carrier submitted evidence that a wage increase had been discussed in meetings since October 1999, there is no evidence to indicate that the wage increase would occur in July 2000. Moreover, there is no evidence that the shift differentials were previously discussed.

The evidence also indicates that the announcement influenced the outcome of the election.

The Board finds that the announcement and timing of a general wage increase and shift differentials tainted the laboratory conditions and constitutes Carrier interference.

IV.

Carrier Meetings and Threats

Carrier meetings with employees are not improper unless they are mandatory, coercive, and significantly increase in frequency during the election period. LSG Lufthansa Services, Inc., 27 NMB 18 (1999).

In addition, the Board examines the content of carrier communications at the meetings to determine whether the communications are coercive, contain material misrepresentations, or combined with other carrier actions, influence the employees in their choice of representative. The Board finds interference where the communications include threats about the consequences of voting for an organization. USAir, Inc., 18 NMB 290 (1991) (misrepresentations of Board procedures); Mid Pacific Airlines, 13 NMB 178 (1986) (promises or withholding of benefits).

The Board finds that IAM failed to establish that the group meetings were mandatory or coercive, contained material misrepresentations, or influenced the employees in their choice of representatives. There is insufficient evidence to establish the Carrier held one-on-one meetings. Moreover, there is no credible evidence that employees were threatened.

V.

Surveillance

The Board has held that surveillance is a per se violation. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 25 NMB 197(1998); Arkansas and Missouri Railroad Co., 25 NMB 36 (1997); EgyptAir, 19 NMB 166 (1992); Key Airlines, 16 NMB 296 (1989); Laker Airways,Ltd., 8 NMB 236 (1981). In addition, as the Board stated in Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., 25 NMB 197(1998), the appearance or impression of surveillance is a sufficient basis for a finding of interference.

There is insufficient credible evidence that the Carrier was engaging in surveillance, either on a system-wide basis or otherwise.

VI.

IAM's Request for a "Laker" Re-Run Election

In carrier interference cases, the Board employs a variety of special ballots and notices intended to eliminate the taint of interference on the employees' freedom of choice. One approach is a "Laker" election. A "Laker" election involves the use of a "Yes" or "No" ballot. No write-in space is provided, and the majority of votes actually cast determines the outcome of the election. See Laker Airways, Ltd., 8 NMB 236 (1981).

The IAM has not established that ATA's interference with the laboratory conditions warrants a "Laker" re-run. Therefore, the Board will conduct a re-run using its standard ballot.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the totality of the circumstances, the Board finds that the laboratory conditions required for a fair election were tainted. This conclusion is based on ATA's announcement of a wage increase and shift differentials during the laboratory period and the timing of that announcement. The Board representative shall conduct a re-run election using a standard ballot.

Pursuant to Section 2, Ninth, the Board ORDERS a re-run election. The list of eligible voters will include those employees eligible in the first election, with the exception of those employees who have left the craft or class. The cut-off date will be May 26, 2000.

Pursuant to Manual Section 11.2, the Carrier is hereby required to furnish, within five calendar days, alphabetized peel- off labels bearing the names and current addresses of those employees on the list of potential eligible voters. The ballot count will take place in Washington, DC. Copies of the attached "Notice to Fleet Service Employees of American Trans Air, Inc." must be posted within five calendar days of the date of this decision on Carrier bulletin boards where employee notices are normally posted. The Notice shall be clearly visible and remain in place for the duration of the re-run election period.

By direction of the NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD

Stephen E. Crable

Chief of Staff

NOTICE TO FLEET SERVICE EMPLOYEES OF

AMERICAN TRANS AIR, INC.

After an investigation conducted by the National Mediation Board (Board) in which American Trans Air, Inc. (ATA) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO (IAM), had the opportunity to present statements and evidence, the Board found that ATA's conduct interfered with, influenced, or coerced employees' choice of representative in an election conducted pursuant to Section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act (Act).

Accordingly, the Board authorizes a second election among ATA's Fleet Service Employees. The list of eligible voters will consist of those eligible to vote in the first election, with the exception of those who have left the craft or class. A copy of this Notice will also be mailed to all eligible voters with the election materials. During the election period, the Investigator will be available to immediately investigate any further allegations.

Section 2, Fourth, of the Railway Labor Act allows employees the right to select representatives without carrier influence or interference.

ATA is not permitted to influence, interfere, or coerce employees in any manner in an effort to induce them to participate or refrain from participating in the upcoming election.

For questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, communicate with the National Mediation Board, Washington, DC 20572, telephone: (202) 692-5040.