HIGHLIGHTS:

Guild confirms that all procedures were done according to NLRB rules. Provides details.

Guild presents recent example with the Pacific Northwest Ballet Orchestra vote in Seattle where AFM disregarded NLRB rules on signature confidentiality.

Guild provides details on election timeline as per NLRB.

International Guild of Symphony, Opera and Ballet Musicians

5802 – 16^th N.E. / Seattle, Washington 98105

January 29, 1998

Dear Colleague:

I’m writing to you because of allegations raised in the January 15^th AFM letter.

Last June, the AFM, in their unsuccessful efforts to win back the rights to represent the musicians in the Pacific Northwest Ballet Orchestra, published and mailed a letter to the members of that orchestra. It was signed by 17 Musicians claiming that they had signed cards. The letter was widely distributed and it’s safe to assume that the employer saw the letter shortly after its distribution. Draw your own conclusions as to the issue of confidentiality and irregularities.

It is my understanding that your employer saw "the cards". He was not shown nor was he told who signed the cards: therefore, the signers’ anonymity has been and will continue to be protected. Our goal was to have the matter of representation settled prior to the holidays. Acting with due diligence we chose to request recognition from the employer. Had he agreed to our request, "the cards" would have been presented to a third party to verify that they had been actually signed by members of the Tucson Symphony Orchestra. The employer, however, chose to file a petition with the NLRB resulting in a request for an election. It is also my understanding that if the AFM had agreed, an election could have taken place sometime shortly after the first of the year. They chose to delay the process.

Subsequently, a day-long hearing was held on November 24^th at the regional offices of the NLRB in Phoenix where all parties were represented by counsel. After the hearing, the Employer, Guild and AFM attorneys filed briefs and a ruling was made foreclosing the possibility of an election at this time. We then filed a "request for review" which, if granted, would allow us the option to appeal the regional decision. AFM attorneys filed a lengthy brief in opposition. As of this writing we are awaiting a decision from Washington DC.

"The Developing Labor Law" Vols. I and II (BNA Books) sets forth the timing of pre-election "Laboratory Periods" where certain behavior may be sufficient to "set aside" an election. In the interim, "exaggeration, inaccuracies, half-truths and name-calling" are oftentimes part of the process. I trust you agree that the AFM’s claim of irregularities, "startling or otherwise" is without merit.

We intend to work for an NLRB supervised election sometime during the next six months and are looking forward to the time when this matter is behind us and that we are allowed to assist you in accomplishing your unified goals.

Yours truly,

R. L. Baunton, President

International Guild of Symphony, Opera and Ballet Musicians