AMERICAN AIRLINES/TWU/IAM&AW DISPUTE
RESOLUTION 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 :
:
NTERNATIONAL 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 o 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 o 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.
The following decision is being rendered this date in accordance with the Committee's procedures and jurisdiction:
Dispute No. 19:
Whether a former TWA LLC employee at MCI/STL or other stations where seniority
credit of 25% has been recognized are considered to have the two (2) years
occupational seniority necessary to displace other "unprotected"
employees on the system juniority list?
DRC Decision No.
19: This question grows out of dispute between TWU, Local 563 in
Chicago and TWU, Locals 529 and 530 in
The President of TWU, Local 563 strongly asserts that such
employees have no right to bump into
TWU, Locals 529 and 530, representing predominantly former
TWA LLC employees, take the opposite position. They point out that the April
29, 2002 Seniority Integration Opinion and Award gave former TWA LLC employees
full seniority in
Article 15(b)4 of the parties' Mechanic and Related collective bargaining agreement states, in relevant part, as follows regarding an employee directly affected by a reduction in force:
If he has two (2) years of seniority, he may exercise his seniority to displace the employee or employees, as outlined in 15(i) and 15(j), with the least system seniority in his own classification or any lower classification, In either a full-time or part-time position, In which he has successfully passed a prequalification test.
In determining whether a mechanic facing a layoff has the requisite seniority to "bump the system", his occupational seniority is calculated based upon the city he is being lard off from (so-called 'exit" seniority) or the city he is attempting to bump into (so-called "entrance"' seniority). While it is not an easy question to resolve, calculating bumping rights based upon entrance seniority cannot be totally reconciled with the DRC's carrier rulings or with the collective bargaining agreement.
In Supplementary Decision No. 5, issued on
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 31112001 and all former TWA LLC
employees - shall be placed on the list in reverse seniority order as
determined by their occupational seniority under the Seniority Integration
Opinion and Award, For former TWA LLC employees their occupational seniority
for placement on the list shall be the occupational seniority they are
exorcising at their location at the time the juniority list is constructed,
i.e. - 100% of TWA seniority, or 25% of TWA seniority, or 411012001, depending
on location. The 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. (Emphasis added.)
In light of the about, the DRC finds no rationale for denying a junior employee the right to use the full or partial occupational seniority provided under the Seniority integration Opinion and Award to bump the system and displace an unprotected junior employee. These employees' options are determined based upon the seniority provided in the Seniority Integration Opinion and Award. If this seniority takes them above the two year limit in Article 15(b) those options include bumping the system.
Moreover, as both sides have noted, the DRC cannot change
the agreement, and the alternative, that is, determining system bumping rights
based on entrance seniority, appears to contradict the collective bargaining
agreement. The agreement provides the right to displace the employee with the
"least" system seniority. If bumping rights were based on entrance
seniority, former TWA LLC employees could (at least until
Accordingly, it is the DRC's finding in the instant case that the two former TWA LLC employees
laid off in
The above supplemental award is being issued this 25th day of February, 2003.
By: Richard R. Kasher
Dispute Resolution Committee