! Mildenberg Law Firm, p.c. attorneys at law 1735 Market Street suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19103 tel (215) 545-4870 fax (215) 545-4871 www.MildenbergLaw.com www.lawyerairline.com July 14, 2015 The Honorable Loretta E. Lynch Attorney General of the United States U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Re: American Airlines/US Airways Request of 80 African American and minority employees in Philadelphia International Airport (PHL), and Washington, D.C. Regan National Airport (DCA) for DOJ Investigation of American Airlines/US Airways: • Air Carrier Safety Violations (FAA Case #EWB14670) • OSHA Violations (OSHA Complaint #909499) • Aircraft Engine Maintenance Fraud • Removal of Evidence During Federal Investigation • Racial Discrimination against African American employees • Retaliation against Whistleblowers and Civil Rights advocates in the workplace Dear Madam Attorney General: This law firm has been retained by eighty (80) employees1 of American Airlines and its recent merger !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 In addition to our 80 clients, we have been contacted by an additional number of employees seeking relief against American Airlines/US Airways at Baltimore Washington ! www.LawyerAirline.com The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Re: American Airlines/US Airways Jul 14, 2015 Page 2 _____________________ ! partner, US Airways, which now form the world’s largest airline.2 Our clients in this matter include African American and minority ramp workers (maintenance, catering and baggage workers on the tarmac), customer service agents (ticket/gate agents), and an AA aircraft mechanic. This letter is to respectfully request, on behalf of our clients, that the United States Department of Justice initiate an investigation into American Airlines/US Airways (“AA”) based upon the information provided by our clients, set forth below. A. Background- Areas of Investigation Our investigation began with complaints of rampant, invidious racial discrimination against African American and other minority employees of AA in Philadelphia, and Washington, DC. The details of the racial discrimination claims are set forth below, and are also the subject of complaints pending to be filed with appropriate state and federal administrative agencies and/or courts of jurisdiction. During the course of our investigation of these civil rights claims, our PHL clients provided evidence, including photographs, of unsafe airline equipment and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! International Airport (“BWI”), Miami International Airport (“MIA”), Charlotte Douglas International Airport (“CLT”), Raleigh-Durham International Airport (“RDU”), HartsfieldJackson Atlanta International Airport (“ATL”), and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (“DFW”). We are in the process of investigating those claims and will supplement this correspondence in due course. 2 On or about November 12, 2013, the DOJ resolved antitrust objections it raised to block the proposed merger between American and US Airways, and the world’s largest airline became AA as a result of the merger. On or about ! www.LawyerAirline.com The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Re: American Airlines/US Airways Jul 14, 2015 Page 3 _____________________ ! aircraft maintenance practices, impacting safety aircraft, the airport, minority employees, as well passengers flying on American. of as Accordingly, on September 17, 2014, we cross-filed a safety complaint (“Safety Complaint”) with the FAA and OSHA. A true and correct copy of the Safety Complaint is attached hereto, and marked Exhibit A. The FAA subsequently investigated the Safety Complaint, conducting on-site inspections at PHL and interviewing our whistleblower clients. On January 28, 2015, the FAA sustained our clients’ complaint, finding that “violation of an order, regulation or standard of the FAA related to air carrier safety occurred.” The FAA also advised that it was “taking appropriate enforcement action.” A true and correct copy of the FAA’s letter of substantiation is attached hereto and marked “Exhibit B.” Later, on March 23, 2014, the U.S. Department of Labor, acting through OSHA, also completed an investigation, and finding what it termed were “serious” violations, issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty directed to American Airlines/US Airways, along with orders to abate the violations and financial penalties in the sum of $11,000.00 (eleven thousand dollars). A true and correct copy of OSHA’s Citation and Notification of Penalty is attached hereto, made a part hereof by reference, and marked “Exhibit C.” In addition to the safety concerns, the Safety Complaint also raised Air 213 whistleblower complaints on behalf of the named Complainants in the Safety Complaint. The whistleblower claims are still pending with the Department of Labor. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 Air 21 Complaints were raised pursuant to Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, 49 U.S.C. § 42121, which bars retaliation against employee whistleblowers as regards air carrier safety. ! www.LawyerAirline.com The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Re: American Airlines/US Airways Jul 14, 2015 Page 4 _____________________ ! After the FAA and OSHA substantiated the safety violations in PHL, we investigated the safety practices of American/US Airways in DCA and found that our DCA clients claimed to be suffering through similar conditions and unsafe practices. Further investigation revealed that these allegations of unsafe conditions and practices appear to be present across the nation at this airline, based upon published reports and agency findings out of other stations including DFW (aircraft maintenance fraud/retaliation) Chicago (“ORD”) (same) and MIA (OSHA workplace safety). True and correct copies of those documents are attached hereto, and marked “Exhibit D.” Based upon the nationwide safety complaints, the repeated and consistent allegations of retaliatory actions and threats, and apparent actions taken to cover up evidence of violations in Philadelphia (discussed below), we believe that only the Department of Justice can bring relief to our clients and ensure that AA is operating safely, in a non-discriminatory manner, and without defrauding the public or the investigating federal agencies. In this letter, I will explain the details of the discrimination and safety complaints, the consistent retaliation and threats to which employees claim they are subjected for bringing forth complaints, and the seemingly improper conduct by AA in removing evidence of the violations, including faulty and unsafe equipment, off site during the time period of the FAA and OSHA investigations. B. Specifics of Investigation 1. Civil Rights As explained, our investigation began with claims of racial discrimination against African American and other minority employees in PHL and DCA. Over the course ! www.LawyerAirline.com The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Re: American Airlines/US Airways Jul 14, 2015 Page 5 _____________________ ! of our investigation, we have interviewed close to 100 AA minority employees. They allege, and we urge the DOJ to investigate, that at these two (2) stations, AA has discriminated against minority employees by subjecting them to harassing and degrading treatment, failing to train them in the same manner as white counterparts, denying them equal opportunities in terms of shifts, assignments, workloads, bids, lines, and overtime eligibility, and subjecting them to disproportionate discipline and retaliation for raising civil rights complaints. Our 80 African American and minority clients at PHL and DCA are laboring in the midst of what they believe is a crisis of workplace racism and discrimination at AA. They allege that racial discrimination against persons of color pervades their jobs. From racial slurs by managers, to racially offensive nicknames for jobs and parts of the terminal, to racial segregation of break rooms, control rooms, teams, and job assignments, the entire gamut of racial discrimination is complained of at these stations by our clients. In addition to the foregoing, our PHL clients claim that AA has engaged in and continued a longstanding practice of refusing and failing to train African American employees, which results in their not being qualified for the same jobs, shifts, and overtime opportunities as their white counterparts, and also impacts the safety of the airport environment. By not being qualified to bid or work the same jobs and overtime, minority employees have fewer opportunities for pay and financial benefits. Such failures to train African American employees also constitute a violation of the FAA’s airline employee training, certification, and safety requirements. Our clients have advised that AA engages in the dangerous practice of failing to train employees ! www.LawyerAirline.com The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Re: American Airlines/US Airways Jul 14, 2015 Page 6 _____________________ ! of color who work on the ramp (runway/tarmac), driving tugs, loaders, and trucks, and who work in catering, loading and unloading food and beverages from the plane, operating lifts, driving vehicles, and operating jetway ramps. In all of these safety-critical areas in PHL, our clients state that AA has denied equal training, including safety training, to their employees of color, and required them to work the jobs anyway. White employees, however, according to our clients, are provided with extensive training on all aspects of the various jobs. Once the white employees are trained, they are then qualified and eligible for bids, jobs, shifts and overtime that the our clients, all persons of color, are not qualified for. Our clients believe that the intentional purpose of this failure to train is to limit non-white employee’s opportunities and benefits of employment, to harass and humiliate them. This allegation is confirmed by the statements of our clients, who allege, tragically, that they have been denied training while their white counterparts have been trained and qualified for jobs and bids. Some claim to have literally begged the white training managers for training. But they are ignored and denied, according to our clients, while trainees who are white are greeted with weeks of training, snacks, refreshments, and pleasantries. The black employees who are denied this training have a very limited potential in what they may and may not do, because, without training, they are only qualified for the lowest level jobs. Notwithstanding this lack of training, however, our clients state that AA continues to force them to work their jobs loading and unloading airplanes at the airport, using heavy equipment. Even though they have ! www.LawyerAirline.com The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Re: American Airlines/US Airways Jul 14, 2015 Page 7 _____________________ ! not been trained, they claim to have been repeatedly forced to work in unsafe conditions and without proper knowledge of the job or safety rules. All of these issues are covered in the standard training that has been denied, according to our clients. In addition to the lack of training, our clients allege that regularly, managers have engaged in racially offensive comments and conduct, some of the more egregious examples of which, as set forth below, include the following: • Pervasive use of the “N-word” by managers. • Pervasive use of racially offensive nicknames by managers: E.g., Referring to the ramp as “Darfur,” because of the large number of African, African American, and other non-white employees working on ground operations, baggage and catering. • Also calling it a “jungle,” and a “ghetto,” and referring to black employees as “circus monkeys.” • Referring to the ramp breakroom in PHL as the “black panther break room,” the “chocolate break room,” and constantly making jail and slavery references including, in DCA, referring to the station as the “cotton fields” and “plantation.” The “plantation” reference at DCA is an inside joke about the fact that the DCA airport is built on the grounds of the former Abingdon Slave Plantation in Virginia. The degrading nature of black employees dealing with “plantation” and “cotton field” references in such a place cannot be understated. There is a museum documenting the former history of the ! www.LawyerAirline.com The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Re: American Airlines/US Airways Jul 14, 2015 Page 8 _____________________ ! slave plantation at the airport at DCA, near AA’s operations. • Calling black employees “boy,” and referring to the predominately black ramp workplace as “work release.” • Separating jobs and shifts between the races, as a form of segregation, having non-white employee working on teams with “black leads,” while white employees work teams with “white leads.” Generally, our clients explain, the “white lead” teams are provided with the lightest jobs of the day, including the lightest flights to pack and unload, the lightest luggage carousels at the baggage terminal, and the gates and assignments with the least flights and the lightest flights. • In PHL, according to our clients: The white leads are also assigned 5-6 team members on a regular basis. The black leads are often assigned substantially less team members, making the black teams have to pick up extra slack, instead of evenly dividing persons based on the number of teams, and not the race of the person. Many times, the black employees are forced to work double and triple the number of flights as the white lead teams. In these situations, they also struggle because they have less team members than the white lead teams. So they are doing more flights, with less people per team. Many times, the white lead teams will be assigned only a few flights, and then will be finished, and spend a large part of the shift on break, or in the break room or Fishbowl (all white control room in PHL). ! www.LawyerAirline.com The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Re: American Airlines/US Airways Jul 14, 2015 Page 9 _____________________ ! • Maintaining Racially Separate Control Rooms, and work areas. Break Rooms, • Failing to provide overtime opportunities to minorities, because they are provided based on qualification, which is based on training, which is often denied to persons of color. • Racially unfair disciplinary practices. Nonwhite employees, as a routine matter, according to our clients, are disciplined much harsher than their white counterparts, for similar violations. Regularly, black employees are suspended and placed on disciplinary levels for violations that white employees are not disciplined for. The purpose of these disciplinary practices, according to our clients, is to keep non-white employees on disciplinary levels. After three (3) levels of discipline, the next level is termination. Black employees are regularly disciplined and terminated on charges that white employees are not disciplined for. In keeping these employees on disciplinary levels and ultimately terminating them, AA thereby keeps the non-white employees in a low seniority status. Many are terminated, according to our clients, before ever reaching significant seniority, and then are replaced with other minority employees who are also treated in a like manner and falsely disciplined and harassed. In this way, intentionally, according to our clients, AA management keeps non-white employees from progressing and receiving equal opportunities in the workplace. With less seniority, AA employees of color are entitled to less pay, less opportunities, less rights with regard to ! www.LawyerAirline.com The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Re: American Airlines/US Airways Jul 14, 2015 Page 10 _____________________ ! bidding jobs and overtime, and less promotional opportunities. • Allowing white employees to exclusively use the newer and safer equipment. This allegation is what started our investigation into the safety practices of this airline. Our clients alleged that white employees were routinely allowed by managers to reserve the best tugs, trucks, lifts and other equipment for their use, to the exclusion of black employees. Black employees have been forced to work on the unsafe equipment that is described in detail in the Safety Complaint, and which equipment both the FAA and OSHA have confirmed does not comply with federal standards. Going further, besides being dangerous to the minority employees, the faulty airline equipment also presents a danger to the general public at the airport and any persons in or near a plane when such equipment is being operated. In summary, with respect to the civil rights claims, our clients allege widespread discriminatory practices. Most urgent and dangerous for our clients is the allegation of discriminatory denial of proper training and safe equipment to do the job. Our clients maintain that white employees are allowed to lock up the better equipment or disable it when they are not using it, so that the black or minority employees cannot use it. Our clients in PHL provided photographic evidence of same. Clients in DCA are also aware of this practice. 2. Airline Safety Violations As a result of our investigation into our clients’ allegation that they were forced to use unsafe equipment on a racially discriminatory basis, we learned, in fact, that much of the equipment, including, trucks, tugs, ! www.LawyerAirline.com The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Re: American Airlines/US Airways Jul 14, 2015 Page 11 _____________________ ! lifts, and other items, at AA in PHL and DCA, is unsafe. We detailed our findings regarding PHL in the Safety Complaint, and the FAA and OSHA both agreed that the complaints were substantiated. However, we learned that the safety problems go well beyond faulty and dangerous trucks and equipment on the ramp. In addition to the equipment itself, client after client advised us that they are afraid to speak up or “tag out” the unsafe equipment because of threats to their jobs if they do so. “Tagging out” a faulty tug or truck means that the worker will place a tag on the equipment to denote that it is not safe for use or needs repairs. “Tagging out” is a standard and required practice. However, our minority employee clients claim to have been threatened on a consistent basis when they have attempted to tag out the very equipment that the FAA and OSHA found was not in compliance. Investigating further, we found that this very same retaliatory practice was alleged by the AA employees who filed the complaints in the cases involving DFW and ORD. We also interviewed clients in DCA and learned that they claim same retaliatory attitude surrounds requests to tag out equipment or have it repaired. Instead of seeing this as a positive action for safety, AA managers apparently frown upon this practice, and, according to our clients, have threatened employees with their jobs or with discipline for protesting the failure to provide safe equipment. The seriousness of this matter cannot be understated. We are talking about, for instance, hydraulic lifts that raise 30 feet into the sky to load an aircraft. In PHL there have been hydraulic leaks that have caused lifts to collapse and injure employees. With respect to trucks, these faulty trucks owned and operated by AA have caught on fire next to airplanes and fuel tanks. And, as explained in the Safety Complaint, some of the vehicles were not properly registered or inspected. In PHL, the catering area of AA is outside the main ! www.LawyerAirline.com The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Re: American Airlines/US Airways Jul 14, 2015 Page 12 _____________________ ! airport, requiring the truck driving employees to load up, and then drive outside the airport, and then back into the airport. Our clients report that management would ban employees from driving on certain roads where police were known to be present, because the trucks were illegal to be driven. Yes, according to our clients, the world’s largest airline was “driving dirty.” All of the various details of the safety issues are set forth in the attached Safety Complaints. The practice of threatening employees with their job if they want to tag out an unsafe piece of equipment must come to an end. But that practice is just a small part of the inappropriate manner in which, according to our clients, this company has operated. 3. Removal of Evidence During Federal Investigation As explained in the Safety Complaint, our clients alleged that the Lavatory Trucks that were being operated at PHL were leaking human waste throughout the work area and airport. These old and faulty trucks were being used to empty the lavatories on the planes of human waste in between flights. Our clients provided photographs of these trucks and their leaks of human waste to the FAA and OSHA along with the Safety Complaint. Curiously, however, OSHA noted in its report of investigation that it was unable to observe leaking or faulty lavatory trucks during its investigation. We learned thereafter that AA lavatory trucks were being removed from the airport at PHL, and wound up in a towing yard in North Philadelphia, miles away from the airport, waiting for export to Puerto Rico. AA was made aware of the OSHA and FAA complaint and allegations at or around the time the Safety Complaint was filed. It is believed that, during the dual-agency federal safety investigation in this matter, AA undertook to remove ! www.LawyerAirline.com The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Re: American Airlines/US Airways Jul 14, 2015 Page 13 _____________________ ! evidence of some of the unsafe practices, including faulty Lavatory Trucks, tugs, and baggage carts, all of which wound up in North Philadelphia, off site from the airport, during the pendency of the dual federal investigation. We have documented the faulty trucks and equipment that was removed from the airport to a site in North Philadelphia. One reason OSHA was unable to observe some of the equipment complained of, we believe, was that it was no longer at the airport, having been removed. We are requesting the DOJ to investigate the removal of this equipment from the airport. An airline that knows that the FAA and OSHA are coming to inspect its equipment should not be allowed to get away with removing the equipment or hiding it from the eyes of federal inspectors. Only the DOJ has the ability to determine whether this practice constituted an act of “hiding the ball” or attempting to obstruct the dual-agency federal safety investigation. Even if AA maintains that said equipment was at the end of its life, and needed to be taken out of service, AA had a duty to keep the equipment on site for the inspections. Moreover, the equipment is being exported to Puerto Rico for use at an airport there, suggesting that the equipment could be used, with repairs. The question then is why it was removed from the airport during the federal investigation into that very equipment. Our PHL clients believe the removal of that equipment was to hide it from the investigators. Indeed, AA did in fact get its way because OSHA noted it was unable to observe any problems with the lavatory trucks and several other categories during their inspections. Conveniently, and unbeknownst to OSHA, it appears that at least some of that equipment was removed from the airport. If done intentionally, that is certainly a brazen act on the part of AA. But it goes along with the allegations of threats for reporting safety violations that now extends nationwide. ! www.LawyerAirline.com The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Re: American Airlines/US Airways Jul 14, 2015 Page 14 _____________________ ! 4. Aircraft Engine Maintenance Fraud Finally, our AA Aircraft Engine Mechanic client has reported that AA is forcing Aircraft Mechanics at PHL to use job cards that omit important steps, parts and procedures when repairing an engine. For instance, he claims that, contrary to proper practices, mechanics must rely solely on job cards and may not use the manufacturer’s reference and checklists, even if they call for different or additional procedures. In addition, he claims, mechanics are being forced to use Minimum Equipment Stickers (“MELs”) to allow planes to fly that need repairs. MELs are stickers placed on a plane to indicate that a repair is needed, but that it is not part of the “minimum equipment” to fly, so the repair can be delayed. He states that MELs are abused as a reason simply to delay repairs and that often flights with 5 MELs are allowed to fly. He considers this unsafe. Because of the atmosphere of retaliation, he is afraid to challenge these practices. But he wants them to stop, and believes that the engine maintenance practices are unsafe. He also advises that much of the maintenance has now been contracted out to companies in foreign countries, including in South America, where wages for mechanics are much less, but there are fewer FAA approved mechanics and improper operations. He claims it is widely understood that these operations will have, for instance, a single FAA approved mechanic, and many unqualified workers. He reports planes coming back from these foreign repair companies with backwards wiring and misconnected systems. He believes that the system of contracting out the maintenance to foreign vendors is dangerous for the flying public, and that the domestic maintenance is done under pressure to use improper job cards. His allegations are strikingly similar to those of the mechanics in DFW and ORD previously mentioned. It is the same kind of aircraft maintenance fraud that is being alleged. ! www.LawyerAirline.com The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Re: American Airlines/US Airways Jul 14, 2015 Page 15 _____________________ ! Again, our investigation on behalf of this client began when he complained that, as an African American, he was denied the opportunity to become a mechanic for many years, while his white counterparts were provided that opportunity. And then, once he became a mechanic, he advises now of the serious safety deficiencies in aircraft engine maintenance at AA, and the atmosphere of fear of speaking up, for fear of one’s job. C. Conclusion Madam Attorney General, the largest airline in the world needs to be held to an appropriate standard. My clients respectfully request that the DOJ initiate an investigation into these allegations, for the safety of my clients, and for the safety of the flying public. In terms of the safety allegations, my clients report that they are still currently suffering with faulty equipment and invite the DOJ to inspect and investigate. Despite the OSHA and FAA finding in PHL, the conditions have not been remedied. My clients will be happy to show any investigators exactly where the faulty equipment is (at least that equipment that has not been removed from the airport), and document for them all of the unsafe practices described above. My clients believe that in terms of the discrimination, AA requires a civil rights monitor to assure appropriate changes and compliance. In terms of the retaliation, and the potential removal of evidence from the eyes of investigators, my clients respectfully request that any and all law enforcement powers be utilized to bring this company, and its executives, into compliance. In the coming days, we will forward under separate cover any additional complaints filed, as well as a link to the photographs and other evidence referenced herein. Should you or any person at the DOJ require any additional ! www.LawyerAirline.com The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Re: American Airlines/US Airways Jul 14, 2015 Page 16 _____________________ ! information, my clients are prepared to sit down and provide any such information requested. This matter is urgent due to the public safety issues involved, but also due to the allegations of racial abuse of minority employees, who have suffered under unfair conditions just to pay their bills and support their families. No employer should discriminate against African American and minority employees in this manner, and, based upon the number of persons involved, we believe that DOJ involvement in the civil rights enforcement is required at this time. We hope the DOJ’s involvement will force positive change upon AA, and that AA can be the largest airline in the world, with the best safety and antidiscrimination practices in the world. We believe that the executives of AA have acted arrogantly and inappropriately in the face of this information, and have continued in AA’s safety violations and conduct alleged by my clients to be racially discriminatory. The similarity in allegations of safety fraud, from Philadelphia, to Chicago, to Dallas, to Washington, DC, I would humbly suggest, speaks volumes as to how the executive managers of this airline have failed in their duties, according to a substantial number of their own employees, nationwide. I have copied various persons at the DOJ, FAA, and OSHA, as set forth below. matter. Thank your for your courtesies in reviewing this Very truly yours, MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, P.C. BY: BRIAN R. MILDENBERG, ESQUIRE cc: Vanita Gupta Assistant Attorney General ! www.LawyerAirline.com The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Re: American Airlines/US Airways Jul 14, 2015 Page 17 _____________________ ! Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 William A. Baer Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Leslie R. Caldwell Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Michael P. Huerta Administrator Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Reggie Govan Chief Counsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 Peggy Gilligan Associate Administrator For Aviation Safety Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 David Michaels, PhD MPH Assistant Secretary of Labor For Occupational Safety and Health 200 Constitution Aveniue, NW ! www.LawyerAirline.com The Hon. Loretta E. Lynch Re: American Airlines/US Airways Jul 14, 2015 Page 18 _____________________ ! Washington, DC 20210 ! www.LawyerAirline.com EXHIBIT A Mildenberg Law Firm, PC By: Brian R. Mildenberg, Esquire PA Attorney ID No. 84861 1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 545-4870 Fax: (215) 545-4871 brm@milandstal.com www.milandstal.com Counsel for Complainants FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION SAFETY COMPLAINT -AGAINSTAMERICAN AIRLINES/US AIRWAYS RE: UNSAFE OPERATIONS AT PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (“PHL”) Complainants: David Smith Andre Fields Kendall Green Andre Roundtree Respondents/Carriers/Certificate Holders: Airport: American Airlines/US Airways PHL SAFETY COMPLAINT Complainants hereby submit the following FAA Safety Complaint, and allege, on their personal information and belief, regarding the operations of Respondents, as follows: I. Parties 1. Complainants, named above, are employees of the above-referenced Respondent/Carrier, US Airways. Because of a merger in process between US Airways and American Airlines, Complainants are also considered employees of, and subjected to working with materials and equipment of, American Airlines, and have also been provided and required to use work garments, trucks and equipment belonging to or labeled as belonging to American Airlines. SAFETY COMPLAINT RE: AMERICAN AIRLINES/US AIRWAYS OPERATIONS AT PHL Page 2 ! II. ! 2. Complainants can be contacted c/o Brian R. Mildenberg, Esquire, counsel for complainants, at the address above. Upon request, Complainants will provide their address to the FAA. 3. Upon information and belief, Respondent carriers are FAA Certificate Holders pursuant to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Upon information and belief, with the merger of these two carriers, they form the largest air carrier in the world. 4. Complainants are employees in the ground operations department, comprised of ramp (tarmac) workers, primarily responsible for baggage and cargo operations, loading and unloading airplanes, and operating trucks, tugs, and K-Loaders, and catering department ramp workers, responsible to load food and beverage and related items onto planes, and driving trucks and operating heavy equipment including forklifts and planeside lifts in loading and unloading aircraft. FAA Jurisdiction 5. A Certificate Holder, including Respondent carriers, must prepare, keep current and file a “manual for the use and guidance of flight, ground operations, and management personnel in conducting its operations.” 14 C.F.R. 121.133 (emphasis added). 6. The required manual must, inter alia: “[i]nclude instructions and information necessary to allow the personnel concerned to perform their duties and responsibilities with a high degree of safety[.]” 14 C.F.R. 121.135(a)(1). 7. “The manual may be in two or more separate parts, containing together all of the following information, but each part must contain that part of the information that is appropriate for each group of personnel.” 14 C.F.R. 121.135(b). 8. The manual must contain “[i]nstructions and procedures for maintenance, preventive maintenance, and servicing.” 14 C.F.R. 121.135(b)(17). 9. With regard to the required manual, US Airways has issued the required manual in several parts. With regard to ground operations, US Airways has issued as part of the required manual an official Ground Operations Manual (“GOM”). 10. The ground operations departments, including ramp, vehicles, equipment, catering department and lavatory services, are governed by the GOM. 11. This GOM is part of the manual required by the foregoing FAA Regulations. Mildenberg Law Firm, P.C. By: Brian R. Mildenberg, Esquire (215) 545-4870 www.milandstal.com SAFETY COMPLAINT RE: AMERICAN AIRLINES/US AIRWAYS OPERATIONS AT PHL Page 3 ! ! 12. FAA Regulations require Certificate Holders, such as respondents, to comply with all parts of their required manuals, including, in this case, the GOM. 13. Failure to comply with the safety procedures and policies in the GOM violates the Respondents’ duties to comply with their current required safety procedures and operations manuals as a condition of certification. 14. The FAA has jurisdiction to investigate the instant ground operations safety complaints because violations of the GOM are violations of the FAA requirements that carriers comply with safety policies and procedures set forth in their manual. The carrier’s failure to comply with the required manual under Title 14 is within the FAA’s jurisdiction, whether for the GOM portion or the flight manual portion. The GOM portion is just as much a part of the FAA required manual as the flight portion. Violation of the GOM is failure to comply with the FAA filed manual required as a condition of ongoing certification. 15. The FAA also has jurisdiction because the within complaints affect conditions of the tarmac, ramp and runway equipment, including equipment that comes into contact with airplanes (e.g., belt loaders), or is operated near aircraft and passengers, creating serious safety risks to employees and the general public, as well as impacting the safe conditions of the airport. 16. The conditions complained of herein have the potential to impact, affect, and damage, and to spread waste and disease onto aircraft, and throughout the airport, creating potentially hazardous aircraft conditions and public health concerns, including in-flight concerns to the extent of contamination of aircraft with waste and human fecal matter from improper and defective lavatory trucks and equipment, as set forth below. 17. Complainants believe and aver that American/US Airways is operating in violation of laws and the safety requirements of the Ground Operations Manual as regards the ramp and catering departments, which are responsible to drive and operate heavy equipment and trucks next to or attached to airplanes, loading and unloading same, impacting the safety of the aircraft and passengers. 18. Complainants also believe and aver that American/US Airways is operating in violation of the safety requirements of the Ground Operations Manual as regards lavatory services to and from Airplanes, spreading human waste and fecal matter throughout the tarmac and workplace. Mildenberg Law Firm, P.C. By: Brian R. Mildenberg, Esquire (215) 545-4870 www.milandstal.com SAFETY COMPLAINT RE: AMERICAN AIRLINES/US AIRWAYS OPERATIONS AT PHL Page 4 ! 19. III. Complainants allege that the violations set forth below are within the FAA’s proper jurisdiction to assure carrier operations, airport and aviation safety. Statement of Particulars 20. The Baggage Tugs provided by the Respondents are unsafe and faulty. There are over one hundred of these vehicles that Complainants and their co-workers are responsible to drive. Complainants allege that the vast majority of these vehicles are unsafe and should not be used in operation, especially near aircraft or fuel vehicles, for the following reasons: a. Faulty brakes/No working emergency brakes; b. Defective power steering; c. Broken/No windshield wipers; d. Bald/Treadless Tires, unable to hold the appropriate tire pressure; e. Constant fluid leaks form transmission fluid & oil, creating hazardous conditions and impacting the safe operation of the vehicles; f. Slipping/Jumping/Idling Transmissions on many of the vehicles; g. Bent/rusted wheel axels; h. Cracked front and back windshields, impacting visibility and creating a risk of shatterd glass in the Tug and on the runway/tarmac; i. Missing horns; j. Missing/broken headlights; k. Missing/broken break lights; l. Missing reverse lights (as in, not just broken, but not even installed); m. Missing hood latches; n. Missing fuel caps; ! Mildenberg Law Firm, P.C. By: Brian R. Mildenberg, Esquire (215) 545-4870 www.milandstal.com SAFETY COMPLAINT RE: AMERICAN AIRLINES/US AIRWAYS OPERATIONS AT PHL Page 5 ! o. Broken driver and passenger seats, cause the seats to move back and forth when the tug is being operated; p. Defective exhaust systems which cause toxic fumes into to the tug; q. Refurbished tugs are painted in a dark blue color, which makes them impossible to see at night. With missing headlights, break lights and reverse lights, they create a danger on the ramp. The tugs are also missing proper light reflection decals. 21. The Belt Loaders provided by Respondent Carriers are also defective and unsafe for operations. These have many of the same issues as above, but also have broken handrails and leaky hydraulic fluid, creating dangers of collapse. 22. The K-Loaders provided by Respondent Carriers are also defective, with many of the same issues as above, including, additionally: a. Broken metal curtain rods, which are protruding from the cart; b. Defective wheels and broken/Bent Axels; c. Broken brake latches. 23. The Lavatory/Waste Trucks utilized in the operation are also dangerous, and are a public health hazard. They are so broken that they are leaking human feces and toxic waste throughout the tarmac and Complainants’ work area around the aircraft. Because of the deplorable and unsafe conditions of these trucks, human feces is tracked all over the ramp and into employee areas and ultimately into the airport and passenger areas of planes. With regard to hazardous waste removed from airplanes operated by Respondents, in the form of human excrement: a. The containment barriers on the lavatory trucks have eroded such that the integrity of the barriers has been compromised. In some cases, the compromise of the barriers is evident by plant life sprouting out from inside the truck containment barrier and growing on the outside. b. Holes in the collection tubes, which are well known but have gone unrepaired, allow fecal matter to leak onto the ramp surface. This creates a high risk of contamination for sterile areas, and, because ramp workers step in the liquid and solid waste, creates cross-contamination with regard to airport quarters and interior work areas, as well as the catering area, where food for aircraft is prepared and packed. Interior of airplanes are also at risk of contamination ! Mildenberg Law Firm, P.C. By: Brian R. Mildenberg, Esquire (215) 545-4870 www.milandstal.com SAFETY COMPLAINT RE: AMERICAN AIRLINES/US AIRWAYS OPERATIONS AT PHL Page 6 ! from human fecal and waste matter, to the extent that any food, worker, baggage or equipment can be contaminated and then come into contact or enter an airplane. Such contamination can be spread by contact and through airborne means, including on airplanes. c. The exterior of the lavatory trucks are not being decontaminated, leaking human fecal waste matter onto the exterior of the trucks, including both wet matter, and dried, solid matter that breaks into smaller pieces or is dried up and becomes as a dust. Individuals who are not wearing Personal Protective Equipment (“PPE”) come into contact with waste matter and all the bacteria it contains on a daily basis because of the defective and disgusting trucks leaking fecal matter all over the ramp. There is a high risk of this contamination spreading and impacting passenger areas within the airport, as well as food service personnel, dining areas and catering. Respondents have maintained an unsafe, hazardous and disgusting condition on the tarmac, throughout its ground operations. d. Dirty PPE worn in the collection human lavatory waste is stored in the interior of the lavatory trucks, thereby contaminating the interior of the trucks. Lavatory trucks are parked in close proximity of the water trucks, allowing the waste matter on the exterior of the lavatory truck, and leaking therefrom, that has not been decontaminated, to potentially cross contaminate the equipment used to provide potable water to the aircraft and the passengers. e. PPE used in human waste collection is allowed to be carried into the break room area. f. Lavatory personnel are not provided with the necessary decontamination materials to properly sterilize the equipment, including the trucks. There is no decontamination once the waste matter has spilled or leaked onto the ramp/tarmac, therefore potentially exposing the ramp and fueling personnel working on flights to harmful bacteria and waste. g. The containment of aircraft lavatory waste as well as the decontamination of all equipment used in the handling of waste material is imperative to the health and safety of Complainants and their co-employees, as well as the passengers of the airline and the general public. Due to cost cutting measures, as well as gross negligence, the Respondent carriers have failed in this basic duty to provide a safe and clean operation. Passengers and aircraft are at risk. Accidental contact by an employee or cross contamination between lavatory waste equipment and equipment used to provide drinking water to the aircraft ! Mildenberg Law Firm, P.C. By: Brian R. Mildenberg, Esquire (215) 545-4870 www.milandstal.com SAFETY COMPLAINT RE: AMERICAN AIRLINES/US AIRWAYS OPERATIONS AT PHL Page 7 ! presents the opportunity for a serious public health risk, and should not be tolerated by an FAA Certificate Holder. 24. The Catering Trucks used on the ramp are also defective with many of the same problems as the above referenced equipment, and, in addition: a. Employees in the Catering Department are instructed to operate trucks requiring a Commercial Driver’s License (“CDL”) when they do not hold a CDL. b. Many of these trucks (as well as the other equipment referenced above) lack fire extinguishers or flare kits, or contain expired fire extinguishers. c. Many of the trucks lack fuel caps. d. There are trucks with expired registration/inspection stickers and trucks with no registration, and no or expired insurance documents inside of them, including trucks that are operated outside of the airport. Some of the routes take roads outside of or around the airport, on public roads. Employees have been directed by managers to avoid certain roads because that is where police are known to be present, and the Respondents do not want to get caught with their illegal vehicles on the road. Most CDL and domestic trucks are operated on public roads in public traffic on their way on and off of the tarmac or to a particular flight, depending on location and best route, either through or around the airport. e. There are trucks that are leaking hydraulic fluid; f. Tires are not sufficiently maintained or replaced, or kept at proper pressure because of their condition; g. Truck 196 recently caught on fire with Complainant David Smith operating same while working a flight at gate C-22. There was no fire extinguisher on the truck. The truck was parked on the back of an aircraft while passengers were boarding. h. On two separate occasions, hydraulic leaks caused two raised CDL trucks to fall out of the air while employees were working inside of them, catering a flight. Employees are at risk of serious injury or death from these practices and unsafe conditions. 25. ! There is also inadequate lighting in the Respondents’ work areas at night. Mildenberg Law Firm, P.C. By: Brian R. Mildenberg, Esquire (215) 545-4870 www.milandstal.com SAFETY COMPLAINT RE: AMERICAN AIRLINES/US AIRWAYS OPERATIONS AT PHL Page 8 ! ! 26. There is inadequate ventilation for employees in the bag chute, recheck, reroute, and Sector 6 work areas. 27. There are sewage backups in the bag chute that have not been eliminated. 28. There is flooding and sewage backup in the Sector 6 work area. 29. There are wet and unsanitary conditions on the floors of the DPO in the Catering Department, causing unsafe conditions and creating a vector for spread of the human waste referenced on the ramp, from defective lavatory trucks. 30. Parts of the Catering Department have been restricted due to severe water leak issues that have caused mold and unsanitary working conditions. The restrictions, however, do not stop employees from coming into contact with the mold and waste, nor do the restrictions stop the food in the catering department, which is served on airplanes, from coming into contact with airborne particles or contamination from persons walking on the ramp, in the leaked human fecal matter that is spread throughout the ground operations of American/US Airways. 31. There are four baggage carousels that are worked by employees. Next to them, the ground is uneven and unmaintained, with metal beams running across the ground, creating dangerous conditions for employees who need to lift and load bags in that area. 32. Barrels of hydraulic fluid and waste are placed right outside of the recheck break room. They constantly leak, causing an unsafe workplace. 33. Defective and damaged towbars are in use. 34. In addition, many workers on the ramp, in safety sensitive jobs, are not receiving required training and are forced to work jobs for which they have not been trained. This places those employees, as well as other persons, at risk of injury. Complainants are aware of many employees who have not received such training. Complainants are also aware of employees who have been asked or directed to falsely sign off on training that was not provided. The training at issue involves safety-sensitive jobs like operating and loading machinery and aircraft. 35. Each of the conditions above violates the provisions of safety and operations of ground equipment near aircraft required under the US Airways GOM. The GOM specifies the proper operation of tugs, k-loaders, lavatory equipment, belt loaders, and other ground equipment. The GOM notes that all vehicles are to be in proper Mildenberg Law Firm, P.C. By: Brian R. Mildenberg, Esquire (215) 545-4870 www.milandstal.com SAFETY COMPLAINT RE: AMERICAN AIRLINES/US AIRWAYS OPERATIONS AT PHL Page 9 ! repair and order, with working breaks, steering, lights, etc., and, obviously, are to be registered and inspected. The GOM notes the dangers of lavatory waste and the proper maintenance and operation of the trucks. The trucks are out of compliance with the GOM. These lavatory trucks need to be retired. IV. ! 36. Complainants have documented many of the conditions and violations with photographs, digital copies of which are being provided to the FAA under separate cover, due to the size of the files. 37. Complainants believe and aver that Respondents managers are aware of the aforesaid conditions/violations because they are obvious, and are a constant source of complaints to managers by Complainants and their co-employees. Despite the complaints and obvious disrepair and safety hazards for the airport, workers, passengers, and aircraft, Respondents have allowed the aforesaid conditions to persist over an extended period of time. Request for Relief 38. Complainants respectfully request that the FAA investigate the aforesaid safety conditions and compel Respondents to come into full compliance with safe and proper ground operations per the GOM, and FAA regulations requiring operations safety, including but not limited to safety of “ground operations.” 14 C.F.R. 121.133. 39. Complainants respectfully request that the FAA take such additional actions as are reasonable under the circumstances to force Respondents’ future compliance, including but not limited to the requirement of safety monitoring and reporting, the requirement to have compliance audits and inspections, and any relevant sanctions, restrictions or actions with regard to the status of Respondents’ FAA certification. 40. Managers of Complainants communicated express and implied retaliatory threats to take adverse job actions against Complainants when, prior to and during July, 2014, Respondents’ managers learned that Complainants were in the process of advocating to many co-employees as to their rights to file complaints related to the foregoing violations. Among Complainants include Union Shop Stewards whose appropriate province is to address, grieve, and advocate concerning the rights of co-employees to proper workplace conditions. Mildenberg Law Firm, P.C. By: Brian R. Mildenberg, Esquire (215) 545-4870 www.milandstal.com SAFETY COMPLAINT RE: AMERICAN AIRLINES/US AIRWAYS OPERATIONS AT PHL Page 10 ! V. Notice of Cross-Filing Rights 41. Some of the concerns arising from the above-referenced circumstances are also within the purview of Local and State regulatory and law enforcement agencies, and some of the circumstances are reportable to OSHA/US Department of Labor, and/or the US Department of Justice. Complainants accordingly also reserve their rights to also file this Complaint with said agencies. WHEREFORE, Complainants respectfully request the FAA to investigate the foregoing and to compel Respondents to cure all violations, and to take such additional actions, or provide such additional relief, as is just and proper under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted, Mildenberg Law Firm, PC ____________________________ By: Brian R. Mildenberg, Esquire PA Attorney ID No. 84861 1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 545-4870 Fax: (215) 545-4871 brm@milandstal.com www.milandstal.com Counsel for Complainants ! Dated: September 17, 2014 Mildenberg Law Firm, P.C. By: Brian R. Mildenberg, Esquire (215) 545-4870 www.milandstal.com 9 US. Department Of?ce of Audit and Evaluation 800 independence Ave. SW, of Tronspor?r?hon Washington. DC 20591 Federal Aviation Administration January 28, 2015 David Smith, Andre Fields, Kendall Green, Andre Roundtree cfo Brian R. Mildenberg 1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Dear Mr. Smith 1? Fields Green Roundtree: The Flight Standards Service has completed their investigation of your air carrier safety allegations in case The investigation substantiated that a violation of an order, regulation or standard of the FAA related to air carrier safety occurred. Accordingly, the FAA is taking appropriate corrective and/or enforcement action. Our of?ce will monitor these actions until complete. Please note the FANS disposition of safety issues outlined in your complaint isiindependent of any investigation the Department of Labor may be conducting into your allegations of discrimination. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Sincerely, Vincent L. Murray 11 Manager, Audit and Branch EXHIBIT US. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration US. Custom House, Room 242 Second Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: 215-597-4955 Fax: 215-597-1956 Inspection Number: 1019469 American Airlines/U Airways Inspection Date(s): 09/23/2014 - 10l31/2014 and its successors Issuance Date: 03/17/2015 Philadelphia International Airport 8000 Essington Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19153 Inspection Site: Philadelphia International Airport 8000 Essington Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19153 This Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty (this Citation) describes violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. The penalty(ies) listed herein is (are) based on these violations. You must abate the violations referred to in this Citation by the dates listed and pay the penalties proposed, unless within 15 working days (excluding weekends and Federal holidays) from your receipt of this Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty you either call to schedule an informal conference (see paragraph below) or you mail a notice of contest to the US. Department of Labor Area Of?ce at the address shown above. Please refer to the enclosed booklet (OSHA 3000) which outlines your rights and responsibilities and which should be read in conjunction with this form. Issuance of this Citation does not constitute a ?nding that a violation of the Act has occurred unless there is a failure to contest as provided for in the Act or, if contested, unless this Citation is af?rmed by the Review Commission or a court. Posting - The law requires that a copy of this Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty be posted immediately in a prominent place at or near the location of the violation(s) cited herein, or, if it is not practicable because of the nature of the employer?s operations, where it will be readily observable by all affected employees. This Citation must remain posted until the violation(s) cited herein has (have) been abated, or for 3 working days (excluding weekends and Federal holidays), whichever is longer. Informal Conference An informal conference is not required. However, if you wish to have such a conference you may request one with the Area Director during the 15 working day contest period. During such an informal conference you may present any evidence or views which you believe would support an adjustment Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty Page 1 of 13 OSHA-2 5st,, to the citation(s) andlor penalty(ies). If you are considering a request for an informal conference to discuss any issues related to this Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty, you must take care to schedule it early enough to allow time to contest after the informal conference, should you decide to do so. Please keep in mind that a written letter of intent to contest must be submitted to the Area Director within 15 working days of your receipt of this Citation. The running of this contest period is not interrupted by an informal conference. please complete, remove and post the Notice to Employees next to this Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty as soon as the time, date, and place of the informal conference have been determined. Be sure to bring to the conference any and all supporting documentation of existing conditions as well as any abatement steps taken thus far. If conditions warrant, we can enter into an informal settlement agreement which amicably resolves this matter without litigation or contest. If you decide to request an informal conference, Right to Contest You have the right to contest this Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty. You may contest all citation items or only individual items. You may also contest proposed penalties and/or abatement dates without contesting the underlying violations. Unless ou inform the Area Director in writin that on intend to contest the citationls! and/or proposed penaltyties} within 15 working days after receipt: the citationtsl and the proposed penaltyties] will become a ?nal order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and may not be reviewed by any court or agency. 15 working days of receipt of this noti?Cation unless contested. (See the enclosed booklet and the additional information provided related to the Debt Collection Act of 1982.) Make your check or money order payable to Please indicate the Inspection Number on the remittance. You can also make your payment electronically on gov. On the left side of the pay. gov homepage, you will see an option to Search Public Forms. Type and click Go. From the results, click on OSHA Penalg Pament Form. The direct link is: 34. Penalty Payment Penalties are due within Payments can be made by Payments of $50,000 or more action please contact the You will be required to enter your inspection number when making the payment. credit card or Automated Clearing House (ACH) using your banking information. require 3 Transaction ID, and also must be paid using ACH. If you require a Trans OSHA Debt Collection Team at (202) 693-2170. OSHA does not agree to any restrictions or conditions or endorsements put on any check, money order, or electronic payment for less than the hill amount due, and will process the payments as if these restrictions or conditions do not exist. Noti?cation of Corrective Action For each violation which you do not contest, you must provide abatement cem?catr'on to the Area Director of the OSHA of?ce issuing the citation and identi?ed above. This abatement certi?cation is to be provided by letter within 10 calendar days alter each abatement date. Abatement certi?cation includes the date and method of abatement. If the citation indicates that the violation was corrected during the inspection, no abatement certi?cation is required for that item. The abatement certi?cation letter must be posted at the location where the violation appeared and the corrective action took place or employees must otherwise be effectively informed about abatement activities. A sample abatement certification letter is enclosed with this Citation. In addition, where the citation indicates that abatement documentation is necessary, evidence of the purchase or repair of equipment, photographs or video, receipts, training records, etc, verifying that abatement has occurred is required to be provided to the Area Director. Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty Page 2 of 13 Employer Discrimination Unlawful The law prohibits discrimination by an employer against an employee for ?ling a complaint or for exercising any rights under this Act, An employee who believes that he/she has been discriminated against may file a complaint no later than 30 days after the discrimination occurred with the US. Department of Labor Area Of?ce at the address shown above. Employer Rights and Responsibilities The enclosed booklet (OSHA 3000) outlines additional employer tights and responsibilities and should be read in conjunction with this noti?cation. Notice to Employees The law gives an employee or his/her representative the Opportunity to object to any abatement date set for a violation if he/she believes the date to be unreasonable. The contest must be mailed to the US. Department of Labor Area Office at the address shown above and postmarked within 15 working days (excluding weekends and Federal holidays) of the receipt by the employer of this Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty. Inspection Activity Data You should be aware that OSHA publishes information on its inspection and citation activity on the Internet under the provisions of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act. The information related to these alleged violations will be posted when our system indicates that you have received this citation. You are encouraged to review the information concerning your establishment at gov. If you have any diSpute with the accuracy of the information displayed, please contact this office. Citation and Noli?catioa of Penalty Page 3 of 13 US. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES OF INFORMAL CONFERENCE An informal conference has been scheduled with OSHA to discuss the citation(s) issued on 03/17/2015. The conference will be held by telephone or at the OSHA office located at US. Custom House, Room 242, Second Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106 on at . Employees and/or representatives of employees have a right to attend an informal conference. Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty Page 4 of 13 OSHAQ CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKSHEET Inspection Number: 1019469 Company Name: American Airlines/US Airways Inspection Site: Philadelphia International Airport, 8000 Essington Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19153 Issuance Date: 03/ 7/201 5 List the speci?c method of correction for each item on this citation in this package that does not read ?Corrected During Inspection? and return to: US. Department of Labor - Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US. Custom House, Room 242, Second Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106 Citation Number and Item Number was corrected on By (Method of Abatement): Citation Number and Item Number was corrected on By (Method of Abatement): Citation Number and Item Number was corrected on By (Method of Abatement): Citation Number and Item Number was corrected on By (Method of Abatement): Citation Number and Item Number was corrected on By (Method of Abatement): Citation Number and Item Number was corrected on By (Method of Abatement): I certify that the information contained in this document is accurate and that the affected employees and their representatives have been informed of the abatement. Signature Date Typed or Printed Name Title NOTE: 29 USC 666(g) whoever knowingly makes any false statements, representation or certi?cation in any application, record, plan or other documents ?led or required to be maintained pursuant to the Act shall, upOn conviction, be punished by a ?ne of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment of not more than 6 months or both. POSTING: A copy of completed Corrective Action Worksheet should be posted for employee review Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty Page 5 of 13 US. Department of Labor Inspection Number: 1019469 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Inspection Date?): 09/23/2014 30/31/2014 Issuance Date: 03/ 1 7/201 5 Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty Company Name: American Airlines/US Airways InSpection Site: Philadelphia International Airport, 8000 Essington Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19153 Citationl Iteml Type ofViolation: Serious 29 CFR All places of employment, passageways, storerooms or service rooms were not kept clean and orderly or in a sanitary condition. ployer did not ensure that the Work area was ?'ee ?our a) Terminal F, Baggage Handling Area The em osing employees to slipping hazards. Observed on or excess and pooled motor oil, or similar ?uids, exp about 23 SEP 2014. Abatement certi?cation required within 10 days a?er abatement date. The certi?cation shall include a statement that abatement is complete, date and method of abatement, and states employees and their representatives were informed of this abatement. ABATEMENT DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED FOR THIS ITEM 03/23/2015 Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: $4000.00 Proposed Penalty: See pages I through 4 of this Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty for information on employer and employee rights and I?CSponsibjfiu'cs, Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty Page 6 of 13 03mg US, Department of Labor Inspection Number: 1019469 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Inspection 0818(5): 09/23/2014 - 10/31/2014 Issuance Date: 03/17/2015 Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty Company Name: American Airlines/U Airways InSpection Site: Philadelphia International Airport, 8000 Essington Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19153 The alleged violations below have been grouped because they involve similar or related hazards that may increase the potential for injury or illness. Citation I Item 2 a Type of Violation: serious 29 CFR Powered industrial truck(s) found to be in need of repair, defective, or in any way unsafe had not been taken out of service until restored to safe operating condition(s) the sit down baggage tractor type power a) Terminals A, B, C, and - The employer did not ensure that afe for the employee's continuous use. industrial trucks were neither in need of repair nor any way uns Inoperable components included, but were not limited to: 1) Broken Windshields 2) Defective Horns 3) Defective Headlamps 4) Defective Taillights Observed on or about 23 SEP 2014, 08 OCT 2014, and 31 OCT 2014. Abatement certi?cation and documentation required within 10 days after abatement date. The certi?cation shall include a statement that abatement is complete, the date and method of abatement, and state that employees and their representatives were informed of this abatement. Abatement documentation shall include documents demonstrating that abatement is complete, such as evidence of the purchase or repair of equipment, photographic or Video evidence of abatement or other written records. ABATEMENT DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED FOR THIS ITEM 04/10/2015 Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: $7000.00 Proposed Penalty: See pages I through 4 of this Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty for information on employer and employee rights and responsibilities. Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty Page 7 of 13 OSHA-2 US. Department of Labor Inspection Number: 1019469 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Inspection Date?): 09/23/2014 10/31/2014 Issuance Date: 03/ 1 7/20 I 5 Citation and Notificationrof Penalty Company Name: Am<3rican Airlines/U Airways Inspection Site: Philadelphia International Aiiport, 8000 Essington Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19153 Citation 1 Item 2 Type ofViolation: Serious 29 CFR The employer did not ensure that all nameplates or markings were in place and maintained in a legible condition. a) Terminal A, B, C, and - Employees were operating powered industn'al trucks where the nameplates were either removed, painted over, or otherwise illegible. Observed on or about 23 SEP 2014, 08 OCT 2014 and 31 OCT 2014. Abatement certi?cation reqnired within 10 days after abatement date. The certi?cation shall include a statement that abatement is complete, date and method of abatement, and states employees and their representatives were informed of this abatement. ABATEMENT DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED FOR THIS ITEM Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 03/26/2015 See pages I through 4 of this Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty for information on employer and eranwa rights and responsibilities. Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty Page 8 of 13 OSHAQ US. Department of Labor Inspection Number: 1019469 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Inspection Date?): 09/23/2014 10/31/2014 Issuance Date: 03/17/2015 Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty Company Name: American Airlines/U Airways InsPection Site: Philadelphia International Airport, 8000 Essington Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19153 Citation 1 Item 2 Type ofViolation: Serious 29 CFR Spillage of oil or fuel shall be carefully washed away or completely evaporated and the fuel tank cap replaced before restarting engine. a) Terminals and - Employees operating baggage tractors and belt loaders were exposed to ?re hazards resulting from the spillage of oil, fuel, or similar substance that was not washed away or comp] eter evaporated. Employees were operating vehicles with either defective or missing fuel tank caps. Observed on or about 23 SBP 2014, 08 OCT 2014, and 31 OCT 2014. Abatement certi?cation required within 10 days after abatement date. The certi?cation shall include a statement that abatement is complete, date and method of abatement, and states employees and their representatives were informed of this abatement. ABATEMENT DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED FOR THIS ITEM Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 03/23/2015 See pages 1 through 4 of this Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty for information on employer and employee rights and reSponsibilfzies, Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty Page 9 of 13 US. Department of Labor Inspection Number: 1019469 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Inspection Binds}: 09/23/2014 10/31/2014 Issuance Date: 03/ 1 7/201 5 Citation and Noti?cation of Penalg Company Name: American Airlines/U Airways Inspection Site: Philadelphia International Airport, 8000 Essington Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19153 Citation 1 Item 2 Type of Violation: Serious 29 CFR Powered industrial truck(s) which were used on a round-the?clock basis were not examined for defects after each shi?: a) Terminals A, B, C, and - The employer did not require employees to eXamine the powered industrial trucks for defects despite being used on a round-the~clock basis. As a result defective items which affect the safe operation of each powered industrial truck were observed during the walk-around inspection including, but not limited to: 1) Broken Windshields 2) Defective Homs 3) Defective Headlamps 4) Defective Taillights Observed on or about 23 SEP 2014, 08 OCT 2014, and 3] OCT 2014. Abatement certi?cation and documentation required within 10 days after abatement date. The certi?cation shall include a statement that abatement is complete, the date and method of abatement, and state that employees and their representatives were informed of this abatement. Abatement documentation shall include documents demonstrating that abatement is complete, such as evidence of the purchase or repair of equipment, photographic or video evidence of abatement or other written records. ABATEMENT DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED FOR THIS ITEM Date By Which Violation Must be Abated: 03/25/2015 a/M I See pages 1 through 4 of this Citation and Noti?cation of Penaity for information on employer and employee rights and responsibilities. Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty Page IO of 13 OSHA-2 U.S. Department of Labor IHSpection Number: 1019469 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Inspection 09/23/2014 10/3 3 0014 Issuance Date: 03/17/2015 Citation and Noti?cation of Company Name: American Airlines/U Airways Inspection Site: Philadelphia International Ahport, 8000 Essington Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19153 Nicholas DeJesse Area Director See pages 1 through 4 of this Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty for infonnation on employer and employee rights and Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty Page 11 of 13 US. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration US. Custom House, Room 242 Second Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: 2156974955 Fax: 215-597?1956 INVOICE DEBT COLLECTION NOTICE American Airlines/US Airways Company Name: Philadelphia International Airport, 8000 Essington Avenue, Inspection Site: Philadelphia, PA 19153 Issuance Date: 03/17/2015 Summary of Penalties for Inspection Number 1019469 Citation 1, Serious $11000.00 $1 1000.00 TOTAL PROPOSED PENALTIES To avoid additional charges, please remit payment to this Area Of?ce for the total amount of the uncontested penalties summarized above. Make your check or money order payable to: Please indicate OSHA's hispection Number (indicated above) on the remittance. You can also make your payment electronically on Wwpaxgov. On the left side of the paygov homepage, you will see an option to Search Public Forms. Type and click Go. From the results, click on OSHA Penal Pa ment Form, The direct link is gov/uavgov/fonn 34, You will be required to enter your inspection number when making the payment. Payments can be made by credit card or Automated Clearing House (ACH) using your banking information. Payments of $50,000 or more require a Transaction ID, and also must be paid using ACH. If you require a Transaction ID, please contact the OSHA Debt Collection Team at (202) 693-2170. OSHA does not agree to any restrictions or conditions or endorsements put on any check, money order, or electronic payment for less than the ?ill amount due, and will cash the check or money order as if these restrictions or conditions do not exist. If a personal check is issued, it will be converted into an electronic fund transfer (EFT). This means that our bank will copy your check and use the account information on it to electronically debit your account for the amount of the check. The debit ??om your account will then usually occur within 24 hours and will be shown on your regular account statement. You will not receive your original check back. The bank will destroy your original check, but will keep a copy of it. If the EFT cannot be completed because of insuf?cient funds or closed account, the bank will attempt to make the transfer up to 2 times. Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty Page 12 of 13 OSHA-2 (Public Law 97-365) and regulations of the US. Department of afer and Health Administration is required to assess interest, for the collection of delinquent penalty debts for violations of the Pursuant to the Debt Collection Act of 1982 Labor (29 CF Part 20), the Occupational delinquent charges, and administrative costs Occupational Safety and Health Act. Interest: Interest charges will be assessed at an annual rate determined by the Secretaiy of the Treasury on all penalty debt amounts not paid within one month (30 calendar days) of the date on which the debt amount becomes due and payable (penalty due date). The cunent interest rate is one percent Interest will accrue from the date on which the penalty amounts (as preposed or adjusted) become a ?nal order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (that is, 15 working days from your receipt of the Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty), unless you ?le a notice of contest. Interest charges will be waived if the ?ll amount owed is paid within 30 calendar days of the ?nal order. if it has not been paid within one month (30 calendar Delinquent Charges: A debt is considered delinquent days) of the penalty due date or if a satisfactory payment arrangement has not been made. If the debt remains delinquent for more than 90 calendar days, a delinquent charge of six percent per annum will be assessed accruing ?om the date that the debt became delinquent. Administrative Costs: Agencies of the Department of Labor are required to assess additional charges for the recovery of delinquent debts. These additional charges are administrative costs incurred by the Agency in its attempt to collect an unpaid debt. Administrative costs will be assessed for demand letters sent in an attempt to collect the aid debt. 32?ay,? Date . ?1 5f Nicho?s DeJesse Area Director Citation and Noti?cation of Penalty Page 13 of l3 EXHIBIT D (/) Safari Power Saver Click to Start Flash Plug-in LOGISTICS & TRANSPORTATION (/LOGISTICS-TRANSPORTATION) 5/01/2015 @ 11:09AM 7,877 views FAA Investigation Substantiates Mechanics Safety Complaint Against American Airlines John Goglia (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/) Contributor Comment Now Follow Comments FOLLOW A March 25 letter from the Federal Aviation Administration to six American Airlines mechanics, who filed whistleblower complaints against the airline for allegedly retaliating against full bio → them for reporting maintenance improprieties, Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. states that an investigation of the airline by the (http://twitter.com/crashdetective) (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/feed/) (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/) agency’s Flight Standards Service “substantiated that a violation of an order, regulation or standard of the FAA related to air carrier safety occurred.” The letter goes on to state that the FAA is taking “appropriate corrective and/or Comment enforcement action.” The letter, sent by Vincent L. Murray, the FAA’s Now Manager, Audit and Analysis Branch, does not specify what American Airlines’ violation was or what corrective or enforcement action might be taken against it. However, the letter references the whistleblower Follow Comments complaint filed by the six American Airlines mechanics, William Carpenter, Joel Hastings, Thaddeus Kosecki, James Larson, Bela Mohapp and Edward Tosado in October 2014. I write about the airline industry and aviation safety. In reply to a request for comment on the FAA’s March letter, an American Airlines spokesperson, Casey Norton, wrote: ” We work closely with FAA oversight everyday and welcome that intense scrutiny. Importantly, FAA oversight teams review every policy and procedure that govern American’s maintenance programs. To date, we have not received notice of any immediate concerns, or any requested corrective action”. Mr. Norton added, “ We welcome any feedback that furthers our culture of safety and maintenance excellence.” The mechanics’ so-called AIR 21 complaint, named after the statute that authorized it (the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century), sets forth numerous allegations of safety violations by American Airlines alleging improper aircraft maintenance and retaliation against mechanics who reported the problems. The whistleblower protections enacted by AIR 21 protect airline employees, contractors and subcontractors who report safety violations from retaliation and set up a complaint and investigation process. While complaints of discrimination or retaliation are investigated by the Occupational Safety and Health (http://www.forbes.com/health/) Administration, an agency of the Department of Labor, the FAA investigates the safety allegations, TMF Group​Voice: which are referred to the agency by the Department of Labor. The What You Need To Know About Setting FAA’s March 25 letter specifically states that its “disposition of safety Up A Business In Latin America issues outlined in [the] complaint is independent of any investigation (http://www.forbes.com/sites/tmfgroup/2015/06/10/whatthe Department of Labor may be conducting into [the] allegations of you-need-to-knowabout-setting-up-adiscrimination.” business-in-latinamerica/? sr_source=lift%5fpolar) The mechanics, represented by Lee Seham, a labor attorney in White Plains, NY, are all employees of American Airlines based at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport. They filed an AIR 21 complaint in October 2014 alleging intimidation and retaliation by American Airlines supervisors and management for writing up aircraft maintenance discrepancies in accordance with required manuals, procedures and the Federal Aviation Regulations. American’s response to the whistleblower allegations and the whistleblowers’ rebuttal are here (http://www.ssmplaw.com/ssmp-law-newsevents/). The AIR 21 complaints also formed the basis for the mechanics’ union, Local (/companies/local/) 591 of the Transport Workers Union, lawsuit filed in federal district course in Chicago against American in January of this year. That case (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2015/01/25/mechanicsunion-sues-american-airlines-alleging-pressure-to-violate-safetyrules/)alleged that the airline pressured mechanics to “commit maintenance fraud.” The AIR 21 retaliation case and the union’s federal lawsuit are pending. TMF Group Contributor TMF Group (http://blogs.forbes.com/people/tmfgroupcontributor/) Comment Now Follow Comments ?can? no.? new mums :10: Lamb. ?SWAm-?lm mun-mm. WJIIFM ?dim m~w~m~m-w~w My. VimLMunyll M.Au?dmm Safari Power Saver Click to Start Flash Plug-in ePaper Home News Business Sports Entertainment Arts & Life Opinion Obits Marketplace Subscribe! Sign In DMNstore Wall Street Airlines Technology Economy & You Top 100 Real Estate Autos 87° $ 7-day Forecast Follow Us " # Search % Airline Industry FAA says American Airlines may have violated federal rules # Share " Tweet & Email Comment ' Print By TERRY MAXON " & Staff Writer Published: 20 February 2015 08:48 PM Updated: 20 February 2015 09:51 PM American Airlines Inc. may have violated federal regulations in its maintenance practices, the Federal Aviation Administration has told a union local. In response, American released a letter saying that the FAA hasn’t told it of any “significant violations or findings.” Transport Workers Union Local 591 released a Jan. 29 letter from an FAA official whose office has been looking into safety complaints raised by American mechanics. “As a result of our investigation, we have determined that a violation of the Code of Federal Regulations may have occurred,” wrote C.J. DiCesare, manager of the FAA certificate maintenance office that oversees American. “This office will continue to investigate this possible violation and will take the necessary corrective action.” DiCesare’s letter indicated the potential violations involved revisions to American’s general procedures manual over the involvement of quality control employees and inspectors during maintenance inspections. Local 591 sued American on Jan. 23 over maintenance practices, alleging that managers were pressuring mechanics to send out airplanes that needed repairs and were unsafe. In a Thursday letter to members, Local 591 president Gary Peterson cited the FAA letter, management’s decision to back off limits put on lightning-strike inspections and another FAA inquiry involving an airplane’s steering system as evidence that managers had tried to compromise safety to avoid flight delays. In a separate letter to American chairman and chief executive Doug Parker, Peterson said that the FAA has assigned six investigators to look into safety complaints lodged by mechanics at the airline’s Dallas-Fort Worth and Chicago facilities. He urged Parker to sit down with union officials to discuss their complaints. American released a letter to Peterson from David Seymour, the airline’s senior vice president for technical operations. Seymour defended the airline’s safety record, called the lawsuit “meritless” and gave him two executives to whom he could bring his concerns. Seymour also wrote that the union should not consider letters of inquiry to be the same as the finding of violations, saying it was "routine for the FAA to independently and objectively evaluate concerns such as those that you have raised." On Twitter: @tmaxon # Share " Tweet & Email Comment ' Print Promoted Stories From The Web Here’s How a 23-Year Old Millionaire Is Investing His Money Young Millionaires Flock to Wealthfront Wealthfront on TechCrunch CNN Money This startup wants to turn your $5,000 real estate investment into $2.5… Business Insider This App is Quickly Replacing Human Financial Advisors CNN Money More Promoted Stories More From Dallasnews.com Drinking More Water Can Solve These 10 Common Problems sodastream All by itself, the city of Dallas has sunk $609 million into the Trinity Early Signs of Alzheimer’s Disease That May Surprise You Griswold Home River project City Hall Blog Don’t look, Jerry! Unsigned Dez Bryant does backflip during Dirk’s Care These GIFs of Dogs with Other Animal Friends Will Make Your Day Rover.com celebrity baseball game Cowboys Blog For many short-sellers, time to throw in towel Business Recommended by Editor Picks Comments To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and then add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please consider writing a letter to the editor. Write a comment 0 Comments Sort Subscribe RSS worldtourismevents.com · eTN Contacts & Team · Advertising · Submit Articles · » Philadelphia C Safari Power Saver Click to Start Flash Plug-in » Part Time Jobs » Online Travel A Australia/ NZ & Pacific Middle East & Gulf Hawaii Africa eTN 5 Star Rated USA & Canada Central Asia Guam Carib/Central/South America East Asia Europe & Israel Global Issues Seychelles Le Reunion » Get Free Airlin » Last Minute Fl Centara Hotels Search » Small Business » Small Business » Compare Fligh THE LIST: 5 Star Rated by eTN Readers - and not for sale! Hotels - Airlines - CVBs - Destinations - people click here to check out THE LIST » Daily News Up » Free Business "IF AMERICAN AIRLINES CARES ABOUT SAFETY, MAINTENANCE DIRECTOR EVITA SHOULD BE FIRED." » Apply For A Pa Dangerous skies when flying on American Airlines? » Last Minute Cr » Best Travel De Adv: Last Minute Airfare Sale » Travel Sweeps Save Up To 70% On Cheap Airfares. Book Now & Get $15 Off. Save Big! » Minnesota Vac 10 more breaking global eTN alerts at this time Ethiopian Airlines expands tourism ties to Cape Town 06/30/15 4:39 pm “The Cape Town city region has the potential to become an economic hub for Africa, but this requires building much better connectivity with the rest of our continent,” said Wesgro CEO Tim Harris, read more Feb 21, 2015 Adv: Consumer Reports Website Find the Top & Worst Rated Products Unbiased Tests, Ratings & Reviews Yesterday eTN questioned American Airlines puts profit over safety? FAA is investigating The FAA letter shown on eTN yesterday comes on the heels of a characterization of the Local 591 lawsuit as “frivolous” by AA Chief Operating Officer Robert Isom and American’s insistence that FAA oversight teams had not alerted Isom of “any critical concerns or issues.” Lee Seham, the lead attorney in the Union's litigation against American Airlines told eTN: “Any fair-minded person would conclude that credibility of Isom and Rodriguez is in tatters. If American cares about safety, they need to either fire Evita or tell her she has to re-assemble the same technicians she spoke to before and let them know that, when they see burn marks or charred metal, they need to initiate a lightning strike inspection.” Similarly, American’s dramatic revisions to its lightning strike work cards come on the heels of the lawsuit’s allegations that AA Regional Maintenance Director Evita Rodriguez advised AMTs that they should “not initiate aircraft lightning strike inspections based on their detection of lightning strike damage in the course of their assigned work.” On February 17, Gary Peterson of the Transport Workers Union of America wrote to the American Airlines CEO summarizing the situation on hand. Mr. Douglas Parker Chief Executive Officer - American Airlines P.O. Box 619616, MD 5675 DFW Airport, TX 75261-9616 Dear Mr. Parker, On January 22, 2015, Local 591 filed a lawsuit in response to American Airlines’ use of surveillance, and threats of arrest and termination, to interfere with Local 591’s representation of fellow Aviation Maintenance Technicians (AMT’s) in the context of an FAA investigation into unsafe aircraft maintenance practices. These threats came on the heels of a point blank refusal of the Senior Vice President of Technical Operations to discuss with Local 591 the unsafe maintenance practices disclosed in the AIR 21 whistleblower action related to ORD (Chicago O'Hare Airport) operations. We are attaching both the ORD (Chicago O'Hare Airport) operations and DFW (Dallas Forth Worth) Air 21 complaints to the mailed copy of this letter. Based on our interviews of the witnesses and review of supporting documentation, Local 591 considers the allegations of FAR violations and coercion to engage in unsafe practices to have been substantiated. Local 591 is once again asking that you sit down and discuss these matters with us. Since the filing of the lawsuit, we have made repeated requests that the company disavow its use of surveillance and threats in response to Local 591’s safety-related representation efforts. These requests have met with no response. Because we consider such management intimidation to undermine both our Union and the airline’s safe operations, we have instructed our attorneys to proceed with a motion for a preliminary injunction. While we regret the necessity of resorting to legal actions against our employer, these efforts have already produced positive results that have served to enhance the safety of American Airlines’ operations: * As a direct result of the AIR 21-prompted FAA investigation, the Company (American Airlines) has received an FAA Letter of Investigation (LOI) regarding the failure to properly repair a defective steering mechanism that resulted in an aborted takeoff. A Company investigator from outside ORD has heard directly from the responsible AMT that he felt pressured to return the aircraft to revenue service. We are hopeful that this same investigator will probe the other reports of maintenance fraud and coercion reported in the AIR 21 complaint. * In a letter dated January 29, 2015, the FAA’s American Certificate Management Office (CMO), responded to plaintiff Local 591’s complaint that AA had violated the FARs by the manner in which it decided to (1) remove Quality Control from the responsibility of the wide body B-Checks and (2) remove inspectors from the wide body B-Checks. The CMO’s letter concluded that: “As a result of our investigation, we have determined a violation of the Code of Federal Regulations may have occurred. This office will continue to investigate this possible violation and will take the necessary corrective action.” * On January 30, 2015, the Company issued a revised version of the B737 Lightning Strike or State Discharge card number 05-96-03, which deleted language that had been used by ORD management to effectively eliminate AMT initiated lightning strike inspections. The revisions appear to be a direct response to the federal complaint’s allegations that Regional Maintenance Director Evita Rodriguez implemented a policy of pressuring AMTs to refrain from calling for lightning strike inspections, even where they had detected lightning strike damage. In order to undo the harm she has caused, we call upon Ms. Rodriguez to assemble the ORD AMTs, explain to them the revisions to the card, and disavow her prior instructions. On the date of the lawsuit’s filing, Company spokesmen represented that they had received no communication from the FAA regarding aviation maintenance issues of concern. While it is hard to believe those statements were truthful at the time, if that same statement were to be reiterated today, it would be a flat lie. The number of FAA investigators assigned to the ORD and DFW AIR 21 complaints has now increased to six. As additional LOIs are received from the FAA – and they will be if the agency is doing its job – we ask you to instruct your subordinates to disclose the nature of the safety violations and work with the President and Vice President of Local 591 to remediate the situation. These recent developments not only confirm the importance of Local 591’s legal efforts, but also confirm the irresponsible nature of media statements to which you and your AMTs may have been exposed. For example, a local Dallas TV station broadcast a statement from a consultant – with little or no aviation maintenance experience – that the federal lawsuit reflected union “thug tactics.” An equally unqualified analyst from Cowen & Company characterized our federal action as a “seemingly frivolous lawsuit” and, unfortunately, AA’s EVP of Corporate Affairs readily agreed. Unlike the media, Local 591 representatives have spoken to the witnesses, and reviewed the documentation provided to the FAA, and have no doubt that the allegations made by our members will continue to be substantiated by the FAA. Mr. Parker, we are asking you to sit down with the President and Vice president of Local 591 and review the evidence. We are also asking that you allow Local 591 representatives to perform their work free of coercion. Compliance with the maintenance manuals and the IAW program is both your legal and moral obligation. Union representatives play a vital role in counter-balancing the profitdriven goal of pushing planes into revenue service. We have asked AMTs who detect improper maintenance practices to notify their Local 591 representative and file an ASAP report. Our goal is not only to protect their jobs and licenses, but to ensure the safe operations of, what is now, the world’s largest airline. Local 591 believes this airline should be the example of what other carriers should emulate when it comes to aircraft maintenance practices and procedures. We regret that it apparently required a federal lawsuit to produce this first step in the right direction. It’s so much easier to recognize that safety is a joint effort for labor and management, rather than shallow words expressed to move people along. Local 591 has only one goal, providing our passengers and flight crews with safe and reliable aircraft. But if management continues to chose to slap our hand away from doing what is required by the IAW settlement reached by AA, in reducing the overall fine with the FAA, we will continue to fight back by serving our membership’s primary interest, including litigation if and when necessary. Respectfully, Gary G. Peterson President ETN PHOTO BLOG Web OSHA Investigation into Health and Safety of Airline's Baggage Handlers Posted: Feb 24, 2015 11:04 PM EST Updated: Feb 24, 2015 11:04 PM EST Reported by Carmel Cafiero, Investigative Reporter Produced by Daniel Cohen, Special Projects Producer CONNECT CONNECT WSVN -- 7News has learned there is an investigation underway involving the health and safety of baggage handlers at Miami International Airport. Investigative reporter Carmel Cafiero is on the case. Miami International is the tenth busiest airport in the nation. Nearly 41 million passengers flew through MIA last year. Carmel Cafiero: "But behind the hustle and bustle of these terminals is an area of the airport the public does not see that has now caught the eye of federal safety inspectors." There are complaints about a portion of this 12-mile, $220 million baggage system. It went online in 2012 as part of a massive revamp of MIA's north terminal and is supposed to make travelers' lives easier. But is it also making employees' lives miserable? A worker sent us these pictures. Baggage handler: "It's an environment that's very dirty, very filthy, and most of the time you have to be washing your face, that comes into your eyes. You feel it in your nose." This longtime American Airlines baggage handler who asked we not show his face says the overhead belt runs non-stop, 24/7, and gives off dust that blankets the baggage area in Concourse D. Baggage handler: "It's a situation where all this friction of the rubber, starts peeling the rubber. All the areas, the walls, the floor, the equipment, the computers, everything is full of that dust, including you when you get home." He says workers have complained to American Airlines and their union. When nothing was resolved, a complaint was filed with OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. After an on-site visit, OSHA issued this notice of alleged safety or health hazards. It says OSHA is investigating American Airlines employees being exposed to high levels of noise and dust falling on them from the automated belt system. Baggage handler: "It's affecting the health of the employees there. My concern is me and my fellow workers; we are exposed to something that we don't need to be exposed." An American Airlines spokesperson told 7News, employees in the baggage area must wear hearing protection, and their hearing is tested annually. And the baggage areas are cleaned several times a day, adding, "We encourage our team members to speak up and let their supervisor know if something is not right." Meanwhile, it could take OSHA up to six months before detailing its findings in the case. Baggage handler: "I hope this doesn't bring retaliation to me, but if it will, we come forward with this. This is the health of the employees." Carmel Cafiero, 7News. IF YOU HAVE A STORY FOR CARMEL TO INVESTIGATE: Miami-Dade: 305-627-CLUE Broward: 954-921-CLUE E-mail: clue@wsvn.com You can also send a tweet to @carmelonthecase. Case: 1:15-cv-00652 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:483 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LOCAL 591, TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, and individuals GARY PETERSON, BRIAN FRIEDMAN, WILLIAM CARPENTER, AND STEVEN LOSOS, Case No. 1:15-cv-00652 DECLARATION OF BRIAN FRIEDMAN Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant. I, Brian Friedman, do declare as follows: 1. I am a named, individual plaintiff in the above-cited matter. 2. I make this Declaration voluntarily, based only on my personal knowledge, unless otherwise stated, and in support of plaintiffs’ application of a preliminary injunction. 3. I am employed as an Aviation Maintenance Technician (“AMT”), by American Airlines (“AA”) in its Chicago (“ORD”) station. I am a member of the Transport Workers Union of America, Local 591 (“union”), which represents the Aviation Maintenance Technicians (“AMTs”) at AA, and I hold the union position of ORD Central Region Vice President. 4. In later 2014, several ORD-based AMTs reported to the union through my office that they were subject to threats and discriminatory treatment based on, and in retaliation for, their efforts to comply with the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) and AA’s maintenance program (“IAW”). A central element of this retaliatory treatment involved the placement of these AMTs on a “rogues list” both to stigmatize them and to curtail their ability to detect and report aircraft maintenance discrepancies that made airplanes unsafe. Declaration of Brian Friedman Page 1 of 14 Case: 1:15-cv-00652 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:484 5. Shift managers and other management representatives acknowledged that their implementation of discriminatory assignment practices, designed to steer certain AMTs away from aircraft maintenance, was for the purpose of punishing these AMTs and reducing maintenance write-ups. 6. I and other union representatives in ORD responded to these AMTs’ complaints with a variety of measures. The AMTs were advised to file harassment complaints through the AA Human Resources (“HR”) Hotline. However, AA HR representatives failed to respond to the complaints or steered the complainants back to the very management representatives who were harassing them. I personally brought theses discriminatory assignment practices and AMT complaints of retaliation to the attention of AA Station Manager Richard Cygan, and pointed out that they were, among other things, a breach of the collective bargaining agreement. Cygan’s response to me was to say, “I don’t care.” 7. On October 6, 2014, the complaining AMTs filed a whistleblower complaint under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, 49 U.S.C. § 42121, based on retaliatory actions for protected activity involving safe aviation. 8. Soon thereafter the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) launched an active investigation of AA centered on its Chicago and Dallas stations, and ultimately involving no fewer than six FAA investigators in the field. The FAA’s investigation involved extensive in-person interviews of Local 591-represented AMTs in Chicago and Dallas. With the FAA investigators’ consent, I participated in assisting their interview of some members. 9. The FAA investigation included visits to AA’s Chicago station with the intent of interviewing AMTs other than the AIR 21 complainants. Chicago-based AMTs were apprehensive, however, about participating in FAA interviews due to concerns about the possibility of AA retaliation and AA’s representations that individual AMTs, rather than AA, were the target of the FAA’s investigation. Due to their concerns of retaliation by AA, and AA’s claims of FAA hostility, AMTs requested union representation from Local 591 during FAA-conducted interviews. The FAA advised that it had no objection to the presence of union representatives provided that there was no interference with the FAA Investigators’ line of questioning. 10. AA management personnel have expressed disdain for the FAA’s investigation and made threats to the participating AMTs. Compliance Manager Lars Romme told AMTs at ORD that eighteen Dallas-based AMTs had been subject to FAA Letters of Investigation. Romme also reportedly told DFW AMTs that they were “shooting themselves in the foot by filing claims with the FAA” and that the AMTs at ORD Declaration of Brian Friedman Page 2 of 14 Case: 1:15-cv-00652 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:485 should realize that nothing is going to happen to AA Management, the “guys are just screwing themselves.” Similar communications, to the effect that the FAA investigation would only target individual AMTs in response to complaints based on failures to comply with FAR/IAW standards, were also reportedly made by other management representatives to Chicago-based AMTs. 11. On December 8, 2014, AA Manager Brian Ray advised Local 591 representatives, including plaintiffs Losos and Carpenter, that, if they attempted to provide representation for AMTs during the scheduled FAA interviews, they would be subject to discipline, up to and including termination. 12. The FAA Investigators continued AMT interviews off-property (away from AA), ultimately interviewing over twenty AMTs – including AMTs who sought interviews at their own initiative to express their concerns about the pressure they experienced to perform maintenance in a manner that violated the FARs. 13. Both AA’s intimidation tactics, and the necessity of conducting FAA interviews off-property, reduced the number of AMTs available for the FAA investigatory process, however. 14. Nevertheless, the AMTs who did participate provided evidence indicating that over 20 AA aircraft may have engaged in revenue service in an unairworthy condition, with several of these unairworthy aircraft presently engaged in such service. 15. The FAA’s findings of unlawful maintenance practices at AA, while not publicly commented on by the FAA, have recently been confirmed. For example, AA Maintenance and Engineering Compliance Manager Jim Norman confirmed on February 5, 2015, that AA had received an FAA Letter of Investigation regarding a rejected takeoff for aircraft 7BA due to the failure to properly address a discrepancy related to the presence of entangled rope in the aircraft’s steering mechanism. The responsible AMT told both Norman and the FAA that he had been pressured to return the aircraft to revenue service by AA management. 16. Due to references made by Chicago-based AMTs to events in Dallas, FAA investigators advised me that they intended to expand their investigation into Dallas and Miami. 17. In addition, I have personal knowledge that AMTs have been subject to explicit efforts to induce and/or coerce them into violating FAR and IAW standards. AA Regional Maintenance Director Evita Rodriguez expressly warned me that if Chicago-based AMTs as a group reported maintenance discrepancies in excess of a Declaration of Brian Friedman Page 3 of 14 Case: 1:15-cv-00652 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:486 arbitrary number that she considered acceptable, then she would have to come up with plans to “deal” with them which I understood as a tacit threat of staff reductions and/or outsourcing, or the threat involuntary unemployment. AMTs were also warned by an AA management representative that if the number of airplanes out of service did not decrease, then AA Vice President of Line Maintenance Paul Wroble would dramatically reduce the maintenance staff as he had previously done at Northwest Airlines, another threat of involuntary unemployment. 18. In addition, on December 4, 2014, I, accompanied by Union President Peterson, visited AA’s Dallas DFW station to conduct our own investigation of maintenance practices and other workplace-related issues. Upon our arrival at the D Terminal Aircraft Maintenance break room we were engaged by local AA Manager Otis Deboard who proceeded to closely monitor our activities. Soon thereafter, Deboard announced that he was leaving and AA Supervisor Badih Delati advised Peterson that he would be following us wherever we went and asked where we were headed. Peterson responded “A-section” and Delati responded he was directed to go “anywhere you are.” After our arrival at the A Terminal mechanics break room, President Peterson contacted Station Manager William Roper to complain that this high-level of surveillance prevented him from communicating with his members. After declining to rescind the surveillance, Station Manager Roper threatened to have us both arrested if we failed to conform to management’s directives. 19. On January 27, 2015, AA Manager Scott Adams contacted me to demand to know my whereabouts. I advised Adams that I was at a safety meeting. Adams then stated that Director Rodriguez had issued a mandate that in the managers’ “tour report” the manager on duty must account for what I and Local 591 Central Region Chairperson Thomas Ceplecha are doing every day. 20. American Airlines, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas. AA operates as a “common carrier” by air and is therefore subject to the provisions of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151, et seq. AA conducts daily flights into and out of the airport located in O’Hare International Airport. AA operates line station and hangar maintenance operations in and around the O’Hare International Airport. 21. AA’s recent history has been plagued by unlawful maintenance practices compromising passenger safety. In April 2008, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) found AA to have engaged in faulty wiring practices that required the grounding of its entire MD-80 fleet. In July 2012, the FAA filed claims against AA in bankruptcy court seeking record fines for faulty maintenance practices, including (a) using Boeing 757 aircraft in revenue service without Declaration of Brian Friedman Page 4 of 14 Case: 1:15-cv-00652 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:487 required wiring repairs, (b) failing to properly overhaul the main landing gear on approximately 30 Boeing 777 jets, (c) performing unauthorized engine repair work on Boeing 767 jets that were nonetheless released into revenue service. 22. On May 31, 2013, United States Bankruptcy Court Judge Sean H. Lane approved an AA/FAA settlement reducing FAA proposed fines of $156,506,575.00 to $24,000,000 based, in part, on AA’s commitment to comply with its In Accordance With (IAW) program and industry best practices. (Attachment A). 23. The AA IAW program essentially replicates federal aviation regulations, which require that all persons performing aircraft maintenance must use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in applicable manufacturer and airline maintenance manuals. 14 CFR §§ 43.13(a), 121.363(a)(2). The IAW program is centered on the mandate that aircraft maintenance technicians “will not perform maintenance without first looking up the procedure in current AMMs [Aircraft Maintenance Manuals], CMMs [Component Maintenance Manuals], ESO [Engineering Specification Order] or other authorizing documents.” AA states that the benefit of strict adherence to written maintenance standards is that it reduces the AMT’s “exposure to FAA Letters of Investigation and civil penalties, including fines, in the event your workmanship is ever questioned.” (Attachment B). AA’s policy requires its AMTs to use IAW “all the time” and recognizes that, in view of this strict adherence, it would be “unrealistic” not to expect a decrease in production. (Id. at 2). AA’s Violation of Terms of AA/FAA Settlement 24. Notwithstanding the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations, the AA/FAA settlement agreement, and the IAW program, AA-employed AMTs have been subject to increasing pressure to engage in unlawful and even fraudulent maintenance practices in order to keep AA aircraft in revenue service. 25. In 2014, Local 591 received numerous reports from AMTs throughout the AA system that AA management representatives and their agents were subjecting them to threats and retaliatory treatment due to the AMTs’ adherence to FARs and the IAW program. Chicago-based AMTs reported conflicts with management based on their determination to properly repair such items as cracked auxiliary power unit (APU) fuel drain shrouds, radomes with substantial erosion damage, lightning strike damage, hydraulic leaks, and contaminated EWIS (electronic wiring interconnection system) wiring. AMTs reported that Field Engineering Authorizations (FEAs) were being improperly utilized to circumvent maintenance manual requirements. AA also suddenly removed all Inspectors from its Wide-body B-Check lines, a practice that had been in place since AA introduced Wide-body Declaration of Brian Friedman Page 5 of 14 Case: 1:15-cv-00652 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:488 aircraft to its fleet, and insisted that AMTs perform what had been the Inspectors’ work without any supplemental training in the completion of inspection work and with no incremental increase in AMT manpower to accommodate the additional workload. Shortly after the change, DFW AMTs complained that the performance of unfamiliar work would result in delays in evaluating and resolving maintenance discrepancies. In response, AA Regional Maintenance Director Edward Sangricco made statements to DFW AMTs that the AMTs should not worry about missing maintenance discrepancies due to the absence of Inspectors since the FAA would not punish them for such omissions. Subsequently, when the delays in evaluating and resolving maintenance discrepancies occurred, AA had the 777 B-Check, which had been performed at DFW since the airline took delivery of the 777, transferred to MIA. 26. In a stark reversal of required practice, AA Regional Maintenance Director Evita Rodriguez also advised AMTs that they should not initiate aircraft lightning strike inspections based on their detection of lightning strike damage in the course of their assigned work. Instead, Rodriguez and other management representatives directed that, in the absence of a pilot report, AMTs should only initiate a lightning strike inspection if they actually saw the aircraft struck by lightning. Since AA policy at ORD requires the suspension of maintenance operations when there is lightning within five miles of the airport geographic center, Director Rodriguez’s new policy would effectively eliminate AMT-initiated lightning strike inspections. 27. In addition to increasingly frequent disputes with management representatives over the application of proper maintenance procedures, ORD AMTs were subject to explicit efforts to induce and/or coerce them into violating FAR and IAW standards. ORD AMTs James Larson and Bela Mohapp reported to Local 591 representatives that, on September 5, 2014, AA Regional Maintenance Director Evita Rodriguez stated to AMTs that she could put every AA aircraft out of service based on maintenance issues and that the AMTs had to strike a “balance” between FAR compliance and “performance” because “I need my airplanes to go out in the morning.” As an indication of the practices she wanted the AMTs to adopt, she explained that, when she was an AA AMT, it was “common practice” to sign documentation attesting to the sumping of Airbus fuel tanks without actually performing the work. In a separate encounter, Director Rodriguez warned plaintiff Friedman that if Chicago-based AMTs as a group reported maintenance discrepancies in excess of number that she considered acceptable, she would have to come up with plans to “deal” with them – a tacit threat of staff reductions and/or outsourcing. AMTs were also warned by an AA management representative that if the number of airplanes out of service did not decrease, AA Vice President of Line Maintenance Paul Wroble would dramatically reduce the maintenance staff as he had previously done at Northwest Airlines. Declaration of Brian Friedman Page 6 of 14 Case: 1:15-cv-00652 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:489 28. AA has refused to make reasonable efforts to resolve disputes at the intermediate levels of the grievance process. Due to the enormous backlog of grievances between AA and Local 591, the insufficiency of arbitration hearing dates available to Local 591, and the limitations on arbitral remedial authority, any attempt to resolve the disputes through the CBA’s grievance and arbitration process would be futile. AIR 21 Filing And AA’s Continuing Refusal To Make Every Reasonable Effort To Resolve Disputes. 29. Chicago-based AMTs complained to Local 591 that the above-referenced responses to AA’s discriminatory treatment were futile. Several advised that they were afraid to come to work, felt physically ill due to workplace stress, and felt increasing pressure to refrain from reporting maintenance discrepancies. Due to AA’s refusal to make any reasonable effort to resolve these workplace issues, I and President Gary Peterson discussed with Chicago-based AMTs the option of filing a whistleblower complaint with the United States Department of Labor pursuant to 49 USC § 42121. These actions are commonly referred to as AIR 21 complaints. 30. On October 6, 2014, six Chicago-based AA AMTs filed the AIR 21 complaint attached hereto as Attachment C. On December 22, 2014, a Dallas-based AA AMT filed the AIR 21 complaint attached hereto as Attachment D. 31. Notwithstanding the necessity of filing a formal AIR 21 complaint with the Department of Labor, Local 591 continued in its efforts to engage in a dialogue with AA to address the underlying workplace issues. By letter dated October 7, 2014, President Peterson wrote to Senior Vice President of Technical Operations David Seymour, with copies to AA CEO Doug Parker, Vice President of Line Maintenance Paul Wroble, and AA Managing Director Employee Relations for the TWU workgroups James Weel, to express my regret that the Chicago-based AMTs felt compelled to file an AIR 21 complaint. (Attachment E). Peterson advised the management representatives that the AIR 21 filing became a “necessity” for the complainants because their efforts to resolve the matters with local management were “utterly frustrated and at times even mocked.” Peterson further advised that, when the AMTs sought to bring issues of safety-related discrimination and retaliation to the attention of Human Resources representatives, they were “either ignored or sent back to the local managers who were the source of retaliation.” Peterson requested a “dialogue” with AA to resolve the underlying issues and expressed my belief that an “agreeable” resolution could still be achieved. Peterson closed the October 7 letter to AA senior management representatives by expressing his hope that “management will come to see the benefit of working with labor to promote issues of mutual interest, such as the airworthiness of our aircraft.” Declaration of Brian Friedman Page 7 of 14 Case: 1:15-cv-00652 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:490 32. By email dated October 9, 2014, Seymour responded to Peterson October 7 letter stating that he would not discuss the AIR 21 complainants’ claims with Local 591 because the complainants were represented by an attorney. (Attachment F). While AA may have a rationale for discussing AIR 21-based claims for relief with the complainants’ legal counsel, that does not excuse AA from discussing with Local 591 the underlying management practices that are compromising safety on an ongoing and daily basis. Moreover, through Peterson’s discussions with the AIR 21 complainants and their legal counsel, Peterson learned that AA has made no attempt to contact them regarding the complainants AIR 21 action. AA’s discriminatory treatment of the complainants has continued as does its refusal to discuss its unsafe practices with any party whatsoever. FAA Investigation In Chicago And AA Threats To Discipline Local 591 Representatives 33. The United States Department of Labor transmitted a copy of the October 6, 2014, AIR 21 complaint to the FAA, which initiated its own investigation of the complainants’ allegations. After obtaining statements and documentary evidence supporting the complainants’ allegations, the FAA broadened its investigation and has assigned at least four FAA investigators to the matter. A few weeks ago, the FAA assigned two additional investigators to examine claims arising in DFW related to unsafe practices, including the discovery of documentary evidence of maintenance fraud committed by Hong Kong vendor HAECO. 34. The FAA investigation included visits to AA’s Chicago station with the intent of interviewing AMTs other than the AIR 21 complainants. Chicago-based AMTs were apprehensive about participating in FAA interviews due to concerns about the possibility of AA retaliation and AA’s representations that individual AMTs, rather than AA, were the target of the FAA’s investigation. An ORD-based Local 591 representative reported that Director Rodriguez stated, in the presence of Station Manager Cygan, that no harm would come to her and Cygan as a result of the FAA investigation; rather, it would be non-management AMTs who would be subject to FAA enforcement actions. By way of confirmation that only the AMTs, and not AA, would be subject to FAA action, Compliance Manager Lars Romme reportedly told AMTs at ORD that 18 Dallas-based AMTs had been subject to FAA Letters of Investigation. Romme also reportedly told DFW AMTs that they were “shooting themselves in the foot by filing claims with the FAA” and that the AMTs at ORD should realize that nothing is going to happen to AA Management, the “guys are just screwing themselves.” Similar communications – to the effect that the FAA investigation would only target individual AMTs in response to complaints based on failures to comply with FAR/IAW standards – were also reportedly made by other management representatives to Chicago-based AMTs. Declaration of Brian Friedman Page 8 of 14 Case: 1:15-cv-00652 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:491 35. Precisely because of AA’s representations regarding the hostility of the FAA to the AMTs, as aggravated by the failure of verifiable action by local FAA representatives to act upon my previous written request for an investigation into the changes in maintenance practices at DFW, the Dallas AIR 21 filing specifically requested that any FAA investigation of the complainants’ allegations “be assigned to FAA personnel who do not regularly interact with AA personnel.” (See, Attachment D at ¶ 1). 36. Due to their concerns of retaliation by AA, and AA’s representation of FAA hostility, AMTs reportedly requested union representation from Local 591 during FAA-conducted interviews and the FAA advised that it had no objection to the presence of union representatives provided that there was no interference with the FAA Investigators’ line of questioning. On December 8, 2014, AA Manager Brian Ray advised Local 591 representatives, including plaintiffs Losos and Carpenter, that, if they attempted to provide representation for AMTs during the scheduled FAA interviews, they would be subject to discipline, up to and including termination. 37. The FAA Investigators continued AMT interviews off-property, ultimately interviewing over 20 AMTs, including AMTs who sought interviews at their own initiative to express their concerns about the pressure they experienced to perform maintenance in a manner that violated the FARs. Both AA’s intimidation tactics, and the necessity of conducting FAA interviews off-property, reduced the number of AMTs available for the FAA investigatory process. Nevertheless, the AMTs who did participate provided evidence indicating that over 20 AA aircraft may have engaged in revenue service in an unairworthy condition, with several of these unairworthy aircraft presently engaged in such service. FAA Investigation In Dallas And AA Surveillance And Threats Of Arrest 38. Due to references made by Chicago-based AMTs to events in Dallas, the FAA investigators advised Local 591, through my office, that it intended to expand its investigation into Dallas and Miami. 39. Local 591’s own investigation of disciplinary action taken against Dallas-based AMTs led to the determination that AMTs were being subjected to retaliatory action for reporting safety violations, including: an AA supervisor’s fraudulent sign-off of maintenance work, the presence of expired oxygen cannisters and missing equipment on aircraft that had just been released from a C-Check performed by Chinese vendor HAECO, improper maintenance on a cabin door seal, cracked engine pylons, defective blocker doors, unfixed cove panel doors, and the simple painting over of damage and removal of silver aluminum identification decals with Declaration of Brian Friedman Page 9 of 14 Case: 1:15-cv-00652 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:492 no corrective action taken on aircraft also recently released from HAECO CChecks, all of which were flown in revenue service with flight crews and passengers onboard. 40. As with the FAA investigation in Chicago, Local 591 was forced to abandon its onpremises representation of its members with respect to safety-related maintenance issues at DFW. On December 5, 2014, Local 591 resumed its investigation offsite in the presence of legal counsel; however, Local 591’s access to potential witnesses has been compromised by AA’s threats and surveillance. On December 22, 2014, a Dallas-based AIR 21 complaint was filed due to the complainant’s concern that he was a target for termination due to his adherence to FAA/IAW standards. (See, Attachment D). 41. Local 591 representatives have received complaints of the violation of FAA/IAW standards, and of retaliatory actions taken against AMTs based on their adherence to these standards, from AMTs at other stations in the AA system. Local 591 advised the FAA investigators of these reports; however, upon information and belief, the FAA team does not have sufficient resources to expand its investigation beyond the Chicago and Dallas stations. On January 8, 2015, Local 591 submitted a petition to the House Aviation Subcommittee requesting that the FAA Investigators be provided with sufficient manpower and necessary funding to complete their investigation but, to date, has received no response. (Attachment G). 42. Local 591’s ability to represent its members and take effective remedial action with respect to safety issues at these other stations is compromised by the unlawful conduct complained of in this action, including: AA management’s ongoing refusal to make every reasonable effort to settle safety-related disputes, its surveillance of Local 591 representatives, and its threats to discipline and/or arrest Local 591 representatives. Particularly in view of the FAA’s limited resources, the public interest in aviation safety is being compromised by AA’s unlawful conduct. 43. AA’s conduct has been (1) motivated by anti-union animus and constitutes an attempt to interfere with its employees' choice of their collective bargaining representative, (2) constitutes discrimination or coercion against that representative, and (3) involves acts of intimidation which cannot be remedied by administrative means. AA’s actions constitute a fundamental blow to Local 591’s representation of its members and the collective bargaining process itself. Declaration of Brian Friedman Page 10 of 14 Case: 1:15-cv-00652 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:493 Union’s Request To Rescind Discipline And Refrain From Threats Has Been Met With Increased Surveillance. 44. Since the filing of the instant lawsuit, Local 591 has made repeated written requests that AA eliminate the current climate of threats and intimidation arising from AA’s threats of arrest and termination, and close surveillance, of union officers. 45. Nevertheless, since the filing of the lawsuit, at the direction of AA Regional Maintenance Director Evita Rodriguez and AA Station Manager Richard Cygan, the level of surveillance of Chicago-based union representatives has actually increased. 46. In the week following the filing of the lawsuit, AA Supervisor Adam Retzler reportedly advised Local 591 Central Region Chairperson Ceplecha that his “bosses” had instructed him to monitor what Ceplecha was doing on a daily basis. Manager Scott Adams advised Ceplecha that the surveillance directive had originated with Director Evita Rodriguez. 47. The persistently higher level of surveillance described above originated only with the filing of the instant lawsuit. 48. On February 5, 2015, TWU Local 591 President Peterson attended a Quarterly meeting with AA CEO Doug Parker and conveyed his concerns over a “broken relationship” and followed up with an email on February 6 stating in relevant part: “I wanted to put in writing my request that you intervene to restore an open and honest dialogue between management and Local 591 … The first order of business must be to eliminate the current climate of threats and intimidation. As you know, while performing my duties as the Local 591 president, I have had DFW supervisors threaten to have me arrested. We have had ORD-based union representatives threatened with termination for attempting to provide their members with representation during FAA investigations. In addition, Local 591 representatives at ORD and DFW have been subjected to improper surveillance … In order to withdraw the action [this lawsuit], we need your assurance that the threats and surveillance will stop.” Mr. Parker never responded to Peterson February 6 email. 49. On February 9, 2015, Peterson forwarded the February 6 email to AA Chief Operating Officer Robert Isom with a request for a response no later than February 11, 2015, as to whether AA would cease the threats against, and surveillance of, union representatives. Mr. Isom never responded to Peterson’s February 9 email. Declaration of Brian Friedman Page 11 of 14 Case: 1:15-cv-00652 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:494 50. On February 13, 2015, Senior Vice President of Technical Operations David Seymour, responded to Peterson original February 6 email, by declined to address the threats of arrests and termination and improper surveillance. The response from AA senior management has been to ignore my entreaties while surveillance of union leaders by lower management has not abated but rather increased. 51. Due to the slow and piecemeal approach of the FAA to these critical safety issues, and because of the FAA’s disclaimer of jurisdiction over workplace disciplinary issues, AA’s continuing interference with the plaintiffs’ ability to represent its members is causing irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, their members, and to the public interest. 52. This irreparable harm is aggravated by AA categorical denials of the existence of any safety-related maintenance issues of concern. AA Chief Operating Officer Robert Isom in communications to AA employees has denied that the FAA has advised AA of any “critical concerns or issues” and has described the safety-related allegations contained in the original complaint as “baseless” and “frivolous.” 53. AA management’s categorical denials of the legitimacy of the maintenance safety issues raised by union representatives is indicative of either a profound ignorance of maintenance operations and/or a willingness to deceive the public and AA’s own maintenance work force regarding known violations of the FARs. 54. Despite the FAA’s failure to respond to the plaintiffs’ recent Freedom of Information Act requests regarding the status of the underlying AIR 21 complaints, AA has, in fact, received official notice of the FAA’s concerns regarding FAR violations. 55. In a letter dated January 29, 2015, the FAA’s American Certificate Management Office (CMO) responded to plaintiff Local 591’s complaint that AA had violated the FARs by the manner in which it decided to (1) remove Quality Control from the responsibility of the wide body B-Checks and (2) remove inspectors from the wide body B-Checks. The CMO’s letter concluded that: “As a result of our investigation, we have determined a violation of the Code of Federal Regulations may have occurred. This office will continue to investigate this possible violation and will take the necessary corrective action.” 56. As referenced in paragraph 11 above, AA Regional Maintenance Director Evita Rodriguez implemented a policy of pressuring AMTs to refrain from calling for lightning strike inspections, even where they had detected lightning strike damage, unless a pilot had reported a lightning hit or the AMTs had actually witnessed a ground strike. Rodriguez sought to justify this deviation from safe practices by Declaration of Brian Friedman Page 12 of 14 Case: 1:15-cv-00652 Document #: 19-6 Filed: 03/27/15 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:495 reference to AA’s B737 Lightning Strike or State Discharge card number 05-96-03, which provided in part that the card was “to be used in the event of an inbound pilot report of a lightning strike or confirmed ground strike. All other conditions are addressed in the SRM/AARD.” On January 30, 2015, barely a week after the initiation of this lawsuit, AA revised 05-96-03 by deleting this language in conformance with FAA concerns that this apparent restriction of an AMT’s ability to call for a lightning strike inspection in the presence of known lightning strike damage compromised safety. Director Rodriguez, however, took no action to publicize the revision of card number 05-96-03 or to rescind her prior instructions that AMTs refrain from calling for a lightning strike inspection unless they actually witnessed an aircraft being struck by lightning. Nor has Director Rodriguez taken any action to rescind her advice to AMTs, discussed in paragraph 18 above, that they resort to maintenance fraud in order to return planes to revenue service more quickly. 57. On February 5, 2015, AA Maintenance and Engineering Compliance Manager Jim Norman confirmed that AA had received an FAA Letter of Investigation regarding a rejected takeoff for aircraft 7BA due to the failure to properly address a discrepancy related to the presence of entangled rope in the aircraft’s steering mechanism. The responsible AMT told both Norman and the FAA that he had been pressured to return the aircraft to revenue service by AA management. 58. AA’s failure to disavow and remediate its unsafe maintenance practices, even in the face of growing FAA confirmation that these practices are unlawful, heightens the public interest in ensuring that the plaintiffs’ rights to represent their AMTmembers is protected. The plaintiffs’ ability to defend safe maintenance practices as the number one priority, in opposition to Director Rodriguez’s policy of striking a “balance” between safety and returning aircraft to revenue service, may be the only thing standing in the way of an aviation disaster. 59. Based on my experience as an AMT who every day on the job has a duty to ensure the safety of those aircraft I maintain, and by union office, the above-described actions directly undermine the flying public’s safety, and interfere with the union’s attempt to help the complaining AMTs and to assist the FAA in its ongoing investigation. It is my belief that lives are at stake. 60. Recently, I learned that AA Compliance Manager Jim Norman planned to visit ORD to interview some members of Local 591 involved in the ongoing FAA investigation. Specifically, on March 9, 2015 Union ASAP Coordinator Harry Charaloumbos contacted me to say that Mr. Norman planned to interview AMT Phil Wyka on the morning March 11 at 0430 hours. Mr. Charaloumbos also stated that AA Compliance Specialist Lars Romme had 61. Declaration of Brian Friedman Page 13 of 14