AMERICAN
AIRLINES/TWU/IAM&AW DISPUTE
RESOLUTION
COMMITTEE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
:
In the Matter
of
Interpretations/ Clarifications and
:
Supplemental
Awards of
the
Integration
Opinion and
Award involving the
:
:
TRANSPORT
WORKERS
:
And
:
:
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS :
AND AEROSPACE
WORKERS
:
:
And
:
:
AMERICAN
AIRLINES
:
:
Involving the
Integration
of Seniority Lists Of the
:
Mechanics and
Related
Employees, Fleet Service
:
Employees,
Stock Clerks
and Flight Simulator
:
Technicians
:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
Introduction
In the April 29, 2002 Seniority Integration Opinion and
Award involving the Mechanics and Related Employees, Fleet Service
Employees,
Stock Clerks and Flight Simulator Technicians of American Airlines
(hereinafter
"American", "AA” or the "Carrier") and Trans World
Airlines (hereinafter "TWA” or "TWA LLC") a provision was made
for the establishment of a Dispute Resolution Committee (hereinafter the
“DRC" or the "Committee").
The Opinion and Award involving the above identified
crafts or classes was initially implemented
on or
about
Subsequent to the issuance of the Opinion and Award,
American, the Transport Workers Union of America (hereinafter the
"TWU") and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers (hereinafter the "IAM") agreed to have the below-signed
Arbitrator serve as the "Dispute Resolution Committee".
The Arbitrator met with the three parties on July 11,
2002 in Washington, D.C. for the purposes of establishing general rules
of
procedure and having preliminary discussions regarding potential issues
concerning interpretation or clarification of the April 29, 2002 Opinion
and
Award.
It was agreed that the Committee would meet when an issue
was properly raised by any of the interested parties concerning a
question of
interpretation or clarification of the Award, and that the Arbitrator,
serving
as the sole member of the Committee, would afford the parties the
opportunity
to present their respective positions concerning their views as to the
proper
interpretation or clarification of the Award.
It was further understood that after the initial meetings
of the Arbitrator with the parties that the IAM would no longer be a
party to
the Committee's proceedings as the IAM, by operation of law, was no
longer a
representative of the employees.
The procedures of the Committee also contemplate that
when, in the discretion of the Arbitrator, it is necessary to conduct an
evidentiary hearing concerning a question in dispute, the Arbitrator
will so
notify the Carrier and the TWU of such determination, and a hearing will
be
scheduled. If deemed appropriate, the TWU may advise the IAM and solicit
that
Organization's views concerning the issue in dispute.
As certain questions of “clarification or interpretation”
may, in fact, involve issues that were not addressed during the course
of the
evidentiary proceedings which led to the issuance of the
Several of the pending “disputes/issues” involve factual
findings. Accordingly, unless there are disputed facts, the Committee
will
accept the facts proffered as being “reliable representations of fact",
and will base its decisions/ resolutions upon such representations.
It should further be noted that Paragraph No. 17 of the
Seniority Integration Arbitration Agreement provides as follows:
17. Any difference arising as to the
meaning or application of the provisions of an Award made by the
Arbitrator
shall be referred back for a ruling to the same Arbitrator and any such
ruling
shall be part of and shall have the same force and effect as the
original
Award. No question other than, or in addition to, the questions relating
to the
meaning or application of the Award shall be considered by the
Arbitrator.
This Paragraph has been deemed to be consistent with the
procedures and jurisdiction of the DRC.
Clarifications, interpretations and supplemental awards
will be issued in numerical order, albeit there may be certain
circumstances
where a numbered issue will be reserved or held in abeyance based upon
the
Committee's inability to address that issue prior to other issues being
resolved (i.e., Dispute Nos. 2 and 14).
The following decisions are being rendered this date in
accordance with the Committee's procedures and jurisdiction:
Dispute
No. 1:
Whether the MCI terminal for
Aircraft Maintenance Technicians (hereinafter "AMTs") is to be
considered an outstation subject to the 25% seniority credit or part of
the MCI
overhaul base, which is subject to the 100% seniority credit?
DRC
Decision No. 1: The
April 29, 2002 Seniority Integration Opinion
and Award indicates that the MCI Terminal is to be considered an
outstation.
However, within the AMT classification employees are assigned and bid
from the
overhaul facility, a fact which was not discussed in the seniority
integration
arbitration proceedings. Thus, for this occupational group, the terminal
is not
staffed as a separate facility, but rather, is integrated with the base
and,
therefore, should be construed as part of the overhaul facility for
purposes of
occupational seniority. Under these circumstances, and in light of the
fact
that American had no AMTs staffed at the Kansas City Terminal, former
TWA LLC
AMTs should be permitted to exercise their full seniority. This
seniority
approach will continue so long as the MCI Terminal is staffed from the
MCI
overhaul base.
Dispute
No. 3:
In what order are American
employees with recall to STL and former TWA LLC employees with recall to
STL
recalled to vacancies?
DRC
Decision No. 3: At
Dispute
No. 4:
What is the meaning of the phrase
in the Opinion and Award "as of April 9, 2001" as it relates to
determining whether a particular station meets the 10% threshold of
ASMs?
DRC
Decision No. 4: The
parties differ regarding the interpretation
of this phrase, the Carrier and the TWU contending that the “April 9,
2001”
date should be literally calculated using the ASMs of the respective
carriers
on that date. The IAM believes that the single date of
Dispute
No. 5:
For what purposes may a TWA
employee exercise his occupational seniority whether it be
25% or 100%?
DRC
Decision No. 5: The
original Seniority Integration Opinion and
Award stated that the 25% occupational seniority provided former TWA LLC
employees in some cities based on TWA service could be used for purposes
of
"bidding and advancement." The Award did not specifically deal with
the issue of whether this seniority also applied in cases of layoff and,
at the
time the Award was issued, this was not an identified issue because AA
was, in
fact, recalling personnel. Unfortunately, given the losses and resulting
contractions being experienced throughout the industry, this question
must now
be resolved.
Two points must be made in analyzing this issue. First,
under the TWU/AA collective bargaining agreement, occupational seniority
is
applied for layoffs. There is an obvious presumption against denying any
group
of employees normal application of their
occupational
seniority under the agreement and the Award.
Second, the basis for the original Award of occupational
seniority for former TWA LLC employees beyond
The Seniority Integration Opinion and Award stated that
the enabling language in the TWU/AA contract was intended to ". . .
ensure
that the acquisition and seniority integration process did not deprive
American's TWU-represented employees of work opportunities they could
legitimately expect . . ." but did not "guarantee for [such
employees] that there would be additional work opportunities . . . nor
does the
language dictate that American's TWU represented employees benefit at
the
expense of the IAM-represented workforce." Discriminating against former
TWA LLC employees by denying them (and only them) application of
occupational
seniority in layoff situations would allow AA employees to benefit at
the
expense of former TWA LLC employees. Former TWA LLC employees would be
among
the first to be bumped out of a station, in lieu of more junior AA
employees
notwithstanding that, in the absence of the additional jobs brought by
the
integration, such employees may well have suffered layoff in the
contraction.
This result is clearly inequitable and not required by the contract. For
this
reason, the occupational seniority awarded former TWA LLC employees by
virtue
of the seniority integration Award does apply in layoff situations. The
following will clarify how that occupational seniority will apply in the
furlough process under the TWU/AA agreement.
Selection
for Furlough
Under the TWU/AA agreement, selection for furlough is
based on occupational seniority in a classification when headcount in a
classification is reduced at a location. Therefore, the occupational
seniority
under the Award which a former TWA LLC employee has at his location will
be
used in identifying the junior employees in the classification at a
location.
At STL and MCI that will be 100% of TWA seniority, at the “10% cities”
(where
AA employees in the classification have been recalled from a furlough
that
occurred prior to the
System
Displacement
Once a junior employee at a location is given a furlough
notice, he has the opportunity to displace junior employees on a
systemwide
basis as identified by the juniority list. Operation of the juniority
list is
intended to identify those junior employees systemwide who can be
displaced by
the furloughed employee through normal operation of occupational
seniority.
However, because former TWA LLC employees’ occupational seniority varies
from
location to location (i.e.- 4/10/2001 and 25%
and
100%), the juniority list must be constructed to account for this fact.
As stated above, the DRC is unwilling to create new
restrictions on use of occupational seniority applicable only to former
TWA LLC
employees. On the other hand, the contract already has a significant
restriction on application of occupational seniority -- a system
protected
employee may not be "bumped" in a system displacement. Because the
vast majority of TWU-represented AA employees have occupational
seniority dates
prior to
In recognition of the above problems, the
"juniority" list shall be constructed within each classification
subject to furlough in the following fashion. All unprotected employees –
all
AA employees hired after
This juniority list will be used solely for identifying
the unprotected positions to which a furloughed employee (AA or former
TWA LLC)
may exercise his occupational seniority to displace a junior employee.
With
respect to the actual displacement of any employee on the juniority
list, a
comparison between the two employees of the occupational seniority at
the
location under the Award will determine whether the displacement can, in
fact,
occur. Junior employees displaced will similarly use their occupational
seniority under the Award in determining their options under the TWU/AA
agreement. A furloughed former TWA LLC employee may exercise the
occupational
seniority he would hold at a location under the 25% or 100% or
Recall
The April 29, 2002 Opinion and Award restricted former
TWA LLC employees from exercising the 25% occupational seniority
provided them
in “10% cities” for purposes of bidding or recall until all AA employees
with
recall rights to that city had either returned or refused recall.
Consistent
with this ruling, in the event AA employees are laid off in a city in
which 25%
seniority has been recognized, former TWA LLC employees with recall
rights to
that city based solely on pre-integration service (pre-April 29, 2002)
may not
exercise such recall until all AA employees have been recalled in the
classification at that location. However, former TWA LLC employees who
have
been recalled to such a station may exercise their 25% seniority for
purposes
of recall in the event they are furloughed.
Dispute
No. 6:
Whether in order to qualify as a
station at which former TWA LLC employees receive 25% of their
seniority, must
the station meet not only the 10% ASM threshold but also have been a
station
staffed by TWA with IAM-represented employees with recall rights?
DRC
Decision No. 6:
The premise for
the Award of 25% seniority to
former TWA LLC employees at some stations and cities was that if TWA
operations
as of
However, in the event American opens a new station which had
never been staffed by AA employees, and TWA operations at such location
exceeded the 10% threshold on
Dispute
No. 7:
To what extent is there a
difference in how a former TWA LLC employee can exercise his seniority
during
the “initial implementation” and after the “initial implementation”?
Either
during the initial implementation or subsequently can a former TWA LLC
employee
exercise his seniority in a reduction in force if it adversely affects
an
American employee?
DRC
Decision No. 7: All parties
recognize and the DRC finds that the
“initial implementation” of the Opinion and Award has been completed.
DRC
Decision No. 5 explains how occupational seniority will apply in a
reduction in
force.
Dispute
No. 8:
Whether a TWA LLC employee is
prohibited from exercising the 25% seniority credit in LAX until all
American
employees (in the classification) are recalled, not only to LAX but to
Burbank
and Ontario, both of which American no longer staffs? The same issue
exists at
JFK which, like LAX, is a multi-airport location.
DRC
Decision No. 8:
This issue first arose at the
American has no operations in
Under these circumstances, delaying the exercise of
seniority by recalled former TWA LLC employees until essentially
theoretical
recall rights are exercised would simply deny such employees the rights
they
secured by virtue of the Seniority Integration Opinion and Award. Such a result would have nothing to do with
preventing adverse impact upon American employees, but would simply
deprive
former TWA LLC employees of credit for work and work opportunities
contributed
by TWA and would be contrary to the rationale of the Opinion and Award.
Therefore, the existence of theoretical rights at
The same rationale would apply at LAX where, for example,
fleet service clerks laid off from
Dispute
No. 9:
Whether American is furloughing
former TWA LLC employees and either simultaneously, or a few days
thereafter,
recalling American employees to the same position (e.g. full-time
previously
held by the now-furloughed TWA LLC employees)?
DRC
Decision No. 9: The
facts presented do not support the
allegation by the IAM. The
DRC
acknowledges that, if
there were a situation where full-time former TWA LLC employees were
laid off
and soon thereafter an equivalent or significant full-time vacancies
were declared
without justification to determine the coincidental timing, it would be
considered a "flush", which is prohibited by the Seniority
Integration Opinion and Award.
The DRC acknowledges that the TWU/AA collective
bargaining agreements provide rights and options to furloughed employees
based
on occupational seniority, including the ability for an employee with
sufficient seniority to displace from part-time to full-time, and vice
versa.
In certain circumstances, a displaced part-time employee can displace a
less
senior fulltime employee.
Based on the facts presented, the DRC finds no breach or
violation of the Seniority Integration Opinion and Award.
Dispute
No. 10:
In the case where American lays
off former TWA LLC employees from their full-time positions and, at the
same
time part-time openings are made available, do these former TWA LLC
employees
have rights to hold the part-time positions over American employees who
are
currently furloughed?
DRC
Decision No. 10:
Since the former TWA LLC employees were not
displaced from their full-time jobs or the jobs they held at the time of
the
Seniority Integration Opinion and Award by American employees, the
application
of the reduction in force and the processing of the awards was in
accordance
with TWU/AA collective bargaining agreement and in compliance with the
“no
flush" requirement of the Seniority Integration Opinion and Award.
Dispute
No. 11:
Once all American employees and
former TWA LLC employees have exercised their recall rights to a
particular
station and a vacancy becomes available at that station, what amount of
occupational seniority can a former TWA LLC employee use when bidding
for that
position?
DRC
Decision No. 11:
The DRC concludes that the location of the
vacancy determines the seniority to be used for system competition for
the
vacancy. The amount of occupational seniority a former TWA LLC employee
from
outside a particular station can use in bidding a vacancy in that
station is
the amount of occupational seniority that a former TWA LLC employee can
exercise within the station under the terms of the Seniority Integration
Opinion and Award. The former TWA LLC employee bidding into
Dispute
No. 12:
Whether American is replacing
probationary employees with TWA LLC employees?
DRC
Decision No. 12:
Consistent with the no “system flush” provision
of the Seniority Integration Opinion and Award, American was not
obligated to
displace probationary employees with furloughed TWA LLC employees.
American
did, in fact, release or furlough several of such employees, although
the
reliable representation of facts establishes that the number of such
employees
was very limited. The Seniority Integration Opinion and Award provided
such
employees with no greater protection than they had under the terms of
the
collective bargaining agreement.
Dispute
No. 13:
Have former TWA LLC employees been
permitted to bump American employees who are on probation or were hired
after
DRC
Decision No. 13:
Consistent with the no “system flush” provision
of the Seniority Integration Opinion and Award, American was not
obligated to
displace probationary employees with furloughed TWA LLC employees.
American
did, in fact, release or furlough several of such employees, although
the
reliable representation of facts establishes that the number of such
employees
was very limited. The Seniority Integration Opinion and Award provided
such
employees with no greater protection than they had under the terms of
the
collective bargaining agreement.
Dispute
No. 15:
As a result of the number of jobs
brought forward by the TWA LLC operation a certain number of former TWA
LLC
employees were not guaranteed jobs. As future vacancies become
available, who
should be awarded the positions?
Example #1. April - 10 - 01 CITY
Status
Seniority
TWA
PART-TIME
AA
PART-TIME
2-01-85
TRANSFER ON FILE TO
FULL-TIME
Who
would be awarded the next full-time position?
Example #2. 25% CITY
Status
Seniority
TWA
PART-TIME
AA
PART-TIME
FULL-TIME
Who
would be awarded the next full-time position?
DRC
Decision No. 15:
The Seniority Integration Opinion and Award only
speaks to the narrow issue of the occupational seniority to be granted
to
incoming TWA LLC employees integrated into the American workforce
represented
by the TWU. In the American system, outside of
The questions and examples posed in Dispute No. 15 do not
relate to the interpretation of the Seniority Integration Opinion and
Award,
but rather to the application of the TWU/AA collective bargaining
agreement.
The contract provides priority to positions for those exercising recall
rights
over those seeking transfers. The DRC does not have the authority to
modify or
change such provisions.
Dispute
No. 16:
In the language of the Seniority
Integration Opinion and Award on the awarding to TWA employees 25% or
100% of
their “acquired seniority”, how is “acquired seniority” defined?
DRC
Decision No. 16:
During the course of the arbitration proceeding,
explanations regarding the manners in which occupational seniority was
accrued
and calculated under the IAM/TWA LLC agreement and the AA/TWU agreements
were
presented into the record evidence. Although the Arbitrator had a clear
understanding of the differences on the establishment of occupational
seniority
under the two agreements, there was no request by the parties, during
the
initial proceeding, to render a remedy on a recalculation of
occupational
seniority for either the TWU/AA or IAM/TWA list. The task in the
seniority
integration proceeding was to decide upon the integration of the
seniority
lists for the respective groups of employees at TWA and at AA. The
integration
of the lists at AA and TWA was approached literally, and the Award took
the
seniority acquired at TWA, which is reflected on the TWA seniority list,
and
integrated it into the TWU/AA seniority list based on the applicable
seniority
credit of 25%, 100% or
The above interpretations, clarifications and
supplemental awards are being issued this 30th day of August, 2002.
By: Original
signed Copy
for word use only.
____________________________
Richard R.
Kasher
Dispute
Resolution
Committee