The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Bahamasair has become embroiled in a trade union battle across the Florida Straits, after it allegedly breached US law by refusing to submit two employee dismissals to arbitration.

The national flag carrier is now fighting the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) in the south Florida courts, over claims that it neither complied with their industrial agreement nor its “federally mandated obligation” over the dismissals of Preston Edwards and Karen Sherman-Johnson.

The IAS, which represents Bahamasair’s Florida-based union employees, says Bahamasair is incorrectly claiming it “waived its right” to arbitrate the two employees’ cases by participating in a February 2012 mediation process.

In documents filed this April with the south Florida district court, the IAS said: “An order compelling [Bahamasair] to arbitrate the minor dispute at issue is necessary to preserve the integrity of the minor dispute procedures and the jurisdiction of the System Board, and to render a proper and effective decision and remedy.”

Not surprisingly, Bahamasair takes a different view of the matter. In its motion to dismiss the IAS action, the airline alleged the union (and the two former employees) lost their right to arbitration because the cases were not submitted within the 30 days stipulated by the industrial agreement.

Arguing that the south Florida court had no jurisdiction and was being asked to “improperly intervene”, Bahamasair alleged: “If such an order were entered in favour [of the union], it would eliminate the rights of Bahamasair to require the union to abide by the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and reward the plaintiff for failing to do so.

“After agreeing to be bound by the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, [the union] now asks for the court’s help in doing an ‘end around’ the grievance resolution procedures which plainly apply to the ‘minor dispute’ alleged in the complaint.”

Court documents reveal that Mr Edwards was dimissed by Bahamasair on March 1, 2010, for a “serious breach of company policy” over the processing of bags belonging to Jeannine Petit Frere on February 17 that year.

The national flag carrier found he violated US regulations by leaving bags unattended at the check-in counter, and also breached Bahamasair’s policy by processing her seven bags and not collecting the necessary charges. Mr Edwards also failed to follow a manager’s order that the boxes not be allowed to travel.

As for Ms Sherman-Edwards, an IAS shop steward, Bahamasair’s director of human resources, Cornel Mortimer, informed her in December 2010 that she was being dismissed for “a serious security violation”.

This stemmed from her checking-in two passengers to Bahamasair flight 228 on December 6, 2010, despite neither of them being present at check-in time. The flight suffered “a serious delay” after it was discovered that the two passengers were not on board, but their baggage was.

The two missing passengers, Tumaini Thompson and Asiah Labranche, were the children of passenger Omeka Thompson. She had told Bahamasair staff that neither of the children were at the airport when Ms Sherman-Edwards checked them in, and that they were supposed to be dropped off later in time for the flight.

The investigation found that Omeka Thompson gave two contradictory letters explaining what had happened. This came after she was contacted via telephone by Ms Sherman-Edwards on December 14, 2010.

Mr Mortimer, in his letter to Ms Sherman-Edwards, wrote: “During that conversaation, you stated that you asked Ms Thompson if the children were present when they were checked in, and she responded: ‘No’.

“You further stated that you informed Ms Thompson that your job was in jeopardy, and that you needed her to ‘tell the truth’.”

Ms Thompson sent in a written statement the same day as the phone conversation, stating her children were present at the check-in. This, though, contradicted what she had told the Bahamasair staff who boarded flight 228.

Mr Mortimer wrote: “On December 15, 2010, approximately two hours before the investigatory hearing on the matter, the company received a second statement from Ms Thompson...

“Therein, Ms Thompson states that you contacted her and told her you would lose your job if she did not state that the children were present at the time of check-in for the flight. Additionally, she states that she lied in her prior statement.”

Ms Sherrman-Johnson, through her attorney, countered by alleging that one of the Bahamasair boarding staff had contacted Omeka Thompson and posed as a Miami-Dade County police officer.

It was claimed that Omeka Thompson was “threatened and essentially coerced” into writing her second statement, but this was denied by the boarding staff member in question.

“Mr Bingham asserts that he did contact Ms Thompson, but that he did not coerce her and did not pose as a Miami-Dade County Police Officer and threaten in any manner,” Mr Mortimer wrote.

“Mr Bingham stated that he contacted Ms Thompson because her assertion in her initial December 14, 2010, statement was in direct contradiction to her original statement to Mr Bingham.

“Therefore, Mr Bingham wanted to determine why she was suddenly changing her story. Additionally, Mr Bingham was concerned that Ms Thompson’s original statement made it appear as though he was not being truthful.” Bahamasair subsequently found against Ms Sherman-Johnson.

Meanwhile, the legal battle between Bahamasair and the union rumbles on. The IAM has filed a motion to ‘compel arbitration’ over the two dismissed employees, arguing that using mediation “does not foreclose the possibility” of arbitration - as the airline seemed to be claiming.

Yet Bahamasair, in a May 19, 2014, filing, responded: “This is a garden-variety squabble between union and air carrier that exclusively must be determined by the grievance resolution mechanism established under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.”

It argued that the first issue to be resolved was whether the arbitration filings were out of time. Only then should the merits of the two employees’ cases be heard.

“Bahamasair stands ready to participate in dispute resolution of the time limits issue regarding the subject grievances under the CBA,” the national flag carrier alleged.

This prompted an instant response from the IAM, which said Bahamasair had “finally conceded” that their dispute should be subject to arbitration. Yet it argued that this did not remove the need for a court order compelling the airline into arbitration.