TUCSON SYMPHONY CORRESPONDENCE
SYNOPSES
WITH LINKS TO COMPLETE TEXT
(Editor’s remarks are in italics.)
EXHIBIT 1: LETTER FROM THE AFM, Jan 15, l999
HIGHLIGHTS:
55 TSO musicians signed cards requesting Guild representation in Oct l998.
AFM believes some card signers were not informed of their rights.
AFM claims that the Orchestra Committee presented the cards to management, contrary to proper procedure.
AFM suggested that the Committee was working "in tandem" with management, and that the Guild was to blame.
NLRB ruled that AFM Local 586 was to remain representative for the time being.
(There’s an interesting reminder buried in the 8th paragraph: All committees are, and must be, composed exclusively of AFM union members, according to its bylaws.)
EXHIBIT 2: TSO COMMITTEE TO ORCHESTRA, Jan 26, 1999
HIGHLIGHTS:
Card-signing procedures were done per NLRB instructions.
Cards were hand-delivered to NLRB: Management never saw them and testified so under oath. Transcript of hearing is available, for verification.
Orchestra members were briefed on their rights in 2 separate meetings, one of which was held by the AFM.
The orchestra has developed a positive relationship with management.
The Orchestra Committee is acting only on the wishes of the majority of the musicians.
AFM holds outdated views of "management as the enemy".
AFM remarks seem generally insulting, untruthful, defaming and inflammatory.
EXHIBIT 3: LETTER FROM GUILD, Jan 29, 1999
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.
EXHIBIT 4: LETTER FROM MANAGEMENT TO AFM, Jan 28, 1999
HIGHLIGHTS:
TSO Executive Director addresses "inaccurate statements" in AFM Jan 15 letter, citing evidence that the AFM presented them as "intentional misrepresentations".
He denies and resents implications that he is behind the Guild.
He questions why the AFM would now seem "intent [on] the destruction of what is now a positive working relationship" when in Sept the AFM claimed to have a "harmonious" relationship that it would "strive to augment".
He questions the motives behind the AFM’s "blatantly inaccurate letter".
EXHIBIT 5: LETTER FROM AFM, Feb 11, 1999
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."
EXHIBIT 6: AFM TO ORCHESTRA, Mar 15, 1999
HIGHLIGHTS:
AFM explains why the charter of Tucson Local 771 was revoked.
Some of the reasons cited are: "long history of noncompliance with the AFM bylaws", musician complaints and a "threatening and frightening atmosphere".
"[Phoenix] Local 586 is one of the shining examples of a successful local union."
The AFM is a "powerful union", the new local "one of the best" which can provide "the kind of service that New York, Los Angeles, Nashville and Phoenix enjoy".
Staying with the AFM would be a "wise decision" for "good representation, effective communications and successful dispute resolution skill".
(Once again, the reminder is omitted that orchestra representatives would be restricted to AFM members only - at this point down to about 30% of the orchestra. Furthermore, the 70% majority of the orchestra would not have a vote. The tone of the letter has changed considerably since the previous letters, where union members that also served on committees were "naïve" and "working in tandem with management". NOW, everything will be a "win-win" situation with all the solutions the AFM has imposed without any input from the musicians. )