AMERICAN
AIRLINES/TWU/IAM&AW
DISPUTE
RESOLUTIO N
COMMITTEE
INTERPRETATIONS/CLARIFICATIONS
AND
SUPPLEMENTAL
AWARDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Service involving the Mechanics and Related Employees, Fleet
Employees,
Stock Clerks and Flight Simulator Technicians of American Airlines
(hereinafter
"American", "M" 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 of Association and Aerospace Machinists
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 April 29. 2002 Seniority Integration Opinion and Award, the
resolution of
these questions will constitute "supplemental awards".
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.
The following decisions are being rendered this date in
accordance with the Committee's procedures and jurisdiction:
Dispute No. 17: What is
the "acquired seniority", as provided for in DRC Decision #16, of a
former TWA employee, who, as of
DRC Decision No. 17: Retained and acquired
seniority are two different concepts. In the Decision involving Dispute
No. 16,
the DRC ruled that the seniority principles of the American/TWU
collective
bargaining agreement would not be applied retroactively to occupational
seniority acquired at TW A. The ruling was based upon at least two
reasons.
First, there are simply not sufficiently reliable records concerning the
nature
and extent of each former TWA LLC employees' service in IAM represented
classifications
to provide a reasonable basis for recalculation of occupational
seniority
accrued at TW A. Second, given the limits placed upon the exercise of TW
A
seniority, the primary impact of this exercise would simply be to
reorder the
former TW A LLC employees for purposes of competing with one another.
The
Seniority Integration
Arbitration
Agreement
expressly prohibits such a result.
The
TWA/IAM collective
bargaining agreement did not limit accrual and exercise of seniority
among
title groups as does the American/TWU collective bargaining agreement.
For
example, a stores clerk who "transferred up" to a mechanic position
kept and continued to accrue stores seniority (although the reverse was
not
true in the event of a downbid.) Service in automotive, facilities or
aircraft
maintenance was counted as occupational seniority applicable to all
mechanic
positions. Accordingly, many TWA employees carried accrued occupational
seniority
in several different classifications with them when they became employed
by
American. By virtue of the Decision by the DRC involving Dispute No. 16,
the
DRC did not deprive these employees of such seniority.
On
the other hand, the
Decision in Dispute No. 16 is equally clear that, going forward, the
exercise
of such seniority is governed by the rules and restrictions of the
American/TWU
collective bargaining agreement. Under this collective bargaining
agreement, an
employee in one title group can retain (but not accrue) seniority based
upon
service in another title group. However, such seniority cannot be used
for
purposes of bidding back to that title group or for purposes of recall
unless
the employee was furloughed from that title group. "Retained"
seniority in another title group is used essentially for one purpose,
that is, bumping back into the former title group in the event of
"a reduction in force pursuant to the provisions of Article 15(b)." See American/TWU collective bargaining
agreement,
Article l0(i).
"Retained" seniority accrued under the TW A/IAM collective bargaining
agreement can only be utilized consistent with these provisions.
Under
the American/TWU
collective bargaining agreement, seniority is retained by an employee
"for
a period of time not exceeding his service in the former Title group."
As
stated above, there is not sufficient documentation to detern1ine the
time and
duration of service in classifications which would constitute service in
other
title groups. However, at the hearing it was represented that the
average
seniority of former TWA LLC employees was slightly less than 20 years.
The DRC will
accept this figure for purposes of resolving this issue with the
understanding
that the same rules apply to this seniority credit as in the original
Award.
Therefore, TWA seniority is to be fully honored at
However,
the employee
cannot exercise this retained seniority unless it can be established
with
reasonable certainty that he actually served in the title group at some
point.
Dispute No. 18: Whether
a former TWA employee, who is being furloughed as a mechanic and who is
not
entitled to exercise 25% of his seniority in that classification, can
use the
25% seniority credit to bump into a classification for which this credit
is
available?
DRC Decision No. 18: Under the terms of
the Seniority Integration Opinion and Award, former TWA LLC employees
are
entitled to exercise 25% of their occupation seniority in cities at
which the
10% ASM threshold has been met. The Award requires that, before such
seniority can
be exercised, all employees, who were on furlough status as of
In
some cities, all
such furloughees have been recalled in certain title groups, but not
others.
Under such circumstances, the 25% credit can only be exercised within
title
groups where there are no American employees, who were on furlough
status as of
The above interpretations, clarifications and
supplemental awards are being issued this 6th day of January, 2003.
By:
Richard
R. Kasher
Dispute
Resolution
Committee