HIGHLIGHTS:

AFM tries to present its "correct" information on the cards: Its previous assumptions had been based on circumstancial evidence.

AFM continues to make new conjectures about "committee’s naivete" and possibly bad "Guild advice", and possible committee and management motives.

AFM questions why management and the Guild should have responded at all to its letter to the orchestra.

(Unlike the earlier letter, AFM neglects to include its reminder that the "elected negotiating committee" must be composed exclusively of AFM members elected ONLY by AFM members, under AFM bylaws.)

AFM claims an "excellent" track record for the Phoenix Local 586 (which took over the Tucson local).

The AFM is the "obvious choice" for "best representation and resources."

STEVE YOUNG

1501 Broadway, Suite 600

New York, NY 10036-5503

February 11, 1999

To: The Musicians in the Tucson Symphony:

From: Florence Netson, Janice Galassi, Jeff Tomberg

The recent flurry of letters to us regarding the use of representation cards necessitates that you be given the correct information, and not be misguided by accusations, inaccuracies and innuendoes.

Let's get some facts straight: On December 8, 1998, the TSO Committee sent a bulletin titled, "Representation Update" to the TSO musicians. In that bulletin, the committee stated "...we presented these cards to Management on October 29th." The bulletin did not say that it asked for the individual musicians’ permission to disclose these cards to the employer. Nor did the bulletin state that management declined to look at the cards.

After we read the TSO Committee’s Bulletin, we spoke with Paul Irving at the NLRB in Phoenix on February 8th. He said that showing the representation cards to management was "not the appropriate course of action."

Now, the TSO Committee and Mr. Kunz have explained that Mr. Kunz refused to look at the cards. That’s good, and it relieves our concern about confidentiality. But, whether the cards were or were not shown to management is not the issue. At the core of this debate is the question of resources and experience. In this instance, it took Mr. Kunz to show the committee that it was inappropriate to give him the cards. The committee’s intention might have been good, but due to their naiveté, misinterpretation of Mr. Irving’s recommendations, or the Guild's advice, it took management to show them what was correct. This would not have happened if people had consulted Local 586 or the organizing department of the AFM. We have had the experience and would have been able to explain how a NLRB election or a third party card count works.

In his letter to us, Mr. Kunz suggests that the AFM is now intent on "the destruction of what is now a positive working relationship in Tucson." At no time in our letter to you did we even suggest that there should be anything less than a harmonious relationship between the musicians and management. In fact, the AFM is looking forward to a successful working relationship, built by, and fostered through experienced representation on both sides of the table. Local 586 has that experience to work cooperatively with management in a cordial, productive and professional manner. The new leadership in Phoenix has demonstrated that this Local has the resources, temperament and expertise to work constructively with management, while remaining focused on doing its best to realize the goals of its members.

That is why you must ask yourselves why Mr. Kunz and Mr. Bounton responded at all, since our letter was directed to you, the musicians. The committee believes it acted in good faith, so why did they need to be defended by the management and the Guild?

Could it possibly be that management is concerned that if you elect to remain with Local 586, they may have to face that same experienced negotiating team (with your elected negotiating committee, of course) who so successfully reached an excellent Agreement in Phoenix? Why did your committee inform Local 586 that no negotiations would commence until June? Is it their desire to assure that you have the best negotiator at the table or is it to delay the negotiations until after the union election?

Who do you think can provide the best representation and resources to defend and support you? To us, the choice is obvious.

If you wish to discuss this with us, please feel free to contact us by telephone (1-800-762-3444) or via the Internet.

Florence Nelson    Janice Galassi    Jeff Tomberg