Index

TWU/ATD Clarification to DRC Questions as of 8 June 2004

Question

Date Submitted

Question

Answer

Status

1/8/03

DRC Decision #17 states, "There are simply not sufficiently reliable records concerning the nature an extent of each former TWA employee's service in IAM represented classifications to produce a recalculation of occupational seniority accrued at TWA if this is the case", what records were used to prove that seven former TWA employees in AA Facilities Maintenance were ever in TWA Facility Maintenance?

Payroll and TWA-CARDEX (similar to AA's SHARPS system), transfer and training records.

1/8/03

DRC Decision #18 states, "The 25% credit can only be exercised within title groups where there are no American employees, who were on furlough status as of April 29, 2002, with recall rights". In LAX there is a Plant Maintenance Man (PMM) currently on furlough status. Why did former TWA employees get 25% credit in LAX?

Arbitrator Kasher specifically ruled where the company had no plans to re-staff a particular classification at a station with a particular job classification that a furloughed from that position would not block an awarding seniority to X-TWA employees

1/8/03

Why were two former TWA "unprotected" employees on furlough status recalled and/or allowed to bump into LAX Facilities Maintenance the week of January 1, 2003, and displace two "protected" AA employees if there were no vacancies available, and wouldn't they have to bump the lowest in seniority system wide?

Please supply supporting documents to local president, Non-protected members cannot bump protected members.

1/8/03

Can AA or Local 564 produce proof that the PMM program was legally eliminated at LAX and not just a verbal deal between AA and Local 564?

Local issue, Please see Local representative to assist you in obtaining an answer

1/8/03

DRC Decision #17 paragraph 3 states “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. Can AA show proof of what Title Group the former TWA employees in Facilities Maintenance in LAX were furloughed from last?

Yes, see answer to question #1

9/1/03

Why are former TWA employees being given “retained” seniority equal to the amount of their “acquired” seniority when they transfer to another title group? • “Retained” seniority and “acquired” seniority are clearly not equal, and DRC decision 17 clarifies the distinction for TWA employees.
• TWA employees were given 20 years seniority “…for the purpose of resolving this issue…” The “issue” of DRC decision 17 is retained seniority, or duration of service in other title groups.
• At LAX, the reason retained seniority will “last” for five years is because retained seniority cannot possibly “be” more than five years. (25% of 20 years)

Kasher granted them use of retained seniority for a 5 year period beginning April 10, 2001 under the award.

11/4/03

Can former TWA LLC AMT's use their retained seniority under the Kasher Award to Bump into the Title II if they have never performed Title II duties as a regular assignment?

11/4/03

In LAX the occupational seniority can be clearly established, why can't these known dates be used to determine Title time in LAX?

In his awards Kasher has refused to the recalculation of TWA occupation seniority

11/4/03

Cost Center information distinguished actual title group time in LAX for ex-TWA employees, these records are available, and why isn't this information being used to determine title seniority for within the ex-TWA employees?

It was, Please see answer to question #1 and #8

11/4/03

In the Q&A, a AA/TWU agreed to document, deference's are made to what the arbitrator decided, is this an accurate depiction of his decision (ref:Q&A 5/7/02)?

Arbitrator Kasher has disagreed with a few of the AA/TWU answers and his decisions govern

11/4/03

Since there was no request by the IAM & TWU to separate occupational seniority (Title seniority). Why where the IAM Title II members only declined the right to speak their piece on this issue?

At each meeting of the DRC the IAM members were represented by William Odriscoll, Robert Clayman - esq, Sito Pantoja and Joe Adonofi

11/4/03

Were individuals in LAX allowed to contact & influence the arbitrator during his decision making process?

11/4/03

Can ex-TWA employees have a meeting with arbitrator Kasher, Mr. Little & Mr. Yingst?

Arbitrators must limit their communications with employees with their awards. However Little, Yingst, Luby or Gless are available

1/21/04

For the purposes of applying the ASM formula in regards to seniority integration, is the Title I Aircraft Cleaning Department considered separate from Title I Aircraft Maintenance. Can the 25%occupational seniority formula be applied in Aircraft Cleaning?

Example: No AA Aircraft Cleaners on Layoff, AA AMTs bump into Title I Aircraft Cleaning Department with former TWA-LLC cleaners at 4/10/01. Layoff occurs again at the station and now former TWA-LLC cleaners laid off first.

No title group was broken down by work groups, the A/C Cleaners are included in the Title 1 group

1/21/04

Can former TWA-LLC members be integrated with AA members without specific training on each others equipment?

Example: TWA-LLC operation short AMT’s, AA recalls AA AMT’s who have no training on TWA-LLC equipment to work TWA-LLC operation. TWA-LLC and AA operation run separately. Can AMTs who are only qualified on AA equipment, be recalled to work on TWA-LLC equipment?

There are no TWA-LLC workers left, all have been integrated.

1/21/04

In the Q&A Seniority Arbitration 1.3, May 7, 2002 Question #85, the arbitrator made clear occupational seniority must be calculated per the AA contract. Where are the results from this?

TWA occupational seniority is broken down by percentages which is available On the system seniority/recall lists

1/21/04

In the Q&A Seniority Arbitration 1.3, May 7, 2002 Question #43, Employee Relations Rep was permanently assigned to go through the records and separate title time and give to the local presidents for review. Was this done and where are the results?

Under the TWA contract time in A/C maint was counted as applicable for title 2 jobs. X-TWA a/c mechanics were allowed by Kasher to keep their duel seniority over the objections of the TWU. His decision is final and binding.

1/21/04

Provisions of the AA/TWU contract state that title groups should be separated. Was the decision not to separate Title I and Tile II fair and equitable to Title II mechanics?

Arbitrator kashers decisions are final and binding.

1/21/04

In Supplement Q&A 1.4, May 22, 2002 Question #4, states our dilemma exactly. It was answered properly. This defines how to separate the Title groups. Why wasn't this done?

Q/A from May 22 are not decisions of the arbitrator and were dealt with in the DRC decisions that followed.

1/21/04

AA/TWU occupational seniority reflects time spent in a classification of work within a Title group starting from the first day an employee reports to that title group. Why haven't mechanics with much more Title II seniority than Title I mechanics been recalled?

As explained above arbitrator Kasher refused to divide the TWA occupational seniority.

1/21/04

On page 9 of the DRC Question #16, September 3, 2002, it is stated, although the arbitrator had a clear understanding of the differences on the establishment of occupational seniority under the two agreements, there is no request by the parties, during the initial proceedings, to render a remedy on a recalculation of occupational seniority for either the AA/TWU or TWA/IAM list. What date was the initial proceedings?

Original Arbitration award was on April 29, 2002.

1/21/04

If there was no request by the parties in the initial proceeding, why was an Employee Rep assigned to ensure the lists are correct?

American Airlines has the responsibility of maintaining the list and keeping a database

1/21/04

Why, as of May 2002, did the arbitrator make it clear that Occupational Seniority must be calculated per the AA/TWU contract?

Because the AA/TWU contract is the applicable agreement after April 29, 2002

1/21/04

In Q&A 1.4 #4, a former TWA-LLC employee who worked 5 years in Aircraft Maintenance, then went to Facility Maintenance for 4 years, then back to Aircraft Maintenance for 2 years. Why was he told he had 7 years Aircraft Maintenance?

He should have 11 years

1/21/04

What changed so dramatically between the date of Award April 29, 2002 and September 3, 2002 to decide not to separate the Occupational Seniority of Title I and Title II Mechanics?

There was nothing in the April 29th award that indicated Kasher wanted to separate the seniority accrued by the X-TWA employees at TWA

1/21/04

Speaking on a local level (LAX), this decision to use the IAM/TWA contract for calculating occupational seniority has benefited 7 Title I mechanics who all have less than 5 years Title II occupational seniority. In LAX there are 28 True Title II mechanics who are below them on the seniority list or furloughed. All 28 have more Title II occupational seniority. How can this unfair situation be corrected? (List attached)

This is a pending DRC issue (Out of LAX)

Home

Page updated

04/22/2009