Kasher ruling

[Hopeful]

Here''s Kasher''s ruling on layoffs.
TWA- Dispute #19 Award 02-28-03


Richard R. Kasher...

AMERICAN AIRLINES/TWUIIAM&AW DISPUTE RESOLUTION COMMITTEE INTERPRETATIONSICLARIFICATIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL AWARDS FEBRUARY 26, 2003
In the Matter of interpretations Clarifications and Supplemental Awards of the April 29, 2002 Seniority Integration Opinion and Award involving the

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA 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

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).



AmericaniTWU11AM
Dispute Resolution Committee
Dispute No. 19 Page 2
The Opinion and Award involving the above identified crafts or classes was initially implemented on or about May 1, 2002.
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.
E J



American/TWUIIAM
Dispute Resolution Committee Dispute No, 19
Page 3
T he 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 IA.Nv1 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 w th the procedures and jurisdiction of the DRC.
j,.a



ArrericanfTWUIIAM
Dispute Resolution Committee Dispute No. 19
Page 4
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 St. Louis and Kansas Cite. Two former TWA LLC mechanics were laid off in St. Louis. The Carrier allowed them to exercise bumping rights into Chicago. Pursuant to the April 29, 2002 Seniority Integration Opinion and Award, Chicago is a city in which former TWA LLC employees are provided with April 10, 2001 seniority. The two former TWA LLC employees referred to above could displace only those employees whose seniority began after that date.

The President of TWU, Local 563 strongly asserts that such employees have no right to bump into Chicago, because they did not possess the two years'' occupational seniority necessary to bump the system under the AA/TWU Mechanic and Related Agreement.

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 St. Louis and Kansas City.
ArnericanFTWU/IAM
Dispute Resolution Committee Dispute No, 19
Page 5
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 August 31, 2002, the DRC reached the following conclusions:
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 llst 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 31112001 shall be blended with the former TWA LLC employees according to the AA employees'' occupational seniority.
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 TWLJ1AA_agreement. (Emphasis added.)







America niTWUfiAM
Dispute Resolution Committee Dispute No, 19
Page 6
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 April 10, 2003) bump only into cities where TWA seniority is recognized. The result would inevitably be that such employees would not be bumping the least senior protected employee, but rather the least senior employee in those selected cities where TWA seniority- is recognized. In other words, if the DRC relied upon entrance seniority to determine bumping rights, the ultimate result would be that the person laid off would not be the least senior unprotected employee.

Accordingly, it is the DRC''s finding in the instant case that the two former TWA LLC employees laid off in St. Louis have the right to bump using their exit seniority.
The above supplemental award is being issued this 25th day of February, 2003.
By: Richard R. Kasher
Dispute Resolution Committee

Represented Groups
:: Alaska
:: Aloha
:: Aloha Island
:: AirTran
:: America West
:: American
:: American Eagle
:: American Trans
:: Continental
:: Continental Express
:: Frontier
:: Hawaiian
:: Horizon
:: Mesaba
:: Northwest
:: Southwest
:: Spirit
:: Sun Country
:: United
:: UPS
:: USAir
:: World Airways

International VP''s and Reps Email Addresses
Jim Little
John Orlando
Gary Yingst
Joe Gordon
John Conley
Bobby Gless

Archive
:: Directors Update 02-28-03
:: TWA- Dispute #19 Award 02-28-03
:: Directors Update...02-26-03
:: All AA Local Presidents and Members 501-590 02-24-03
:: DIRECTORS UPDATE 02-21-03
:: Transportation Labor Stands Up for Airline Safety 02-24-03
:: Transportation Unions Assail Airline Industry 02-24-03
:: United''s $700 million quest 02-23-03
:: Reeling airline industry braces for effects of war 02-23-03
:: Directors Update: 02-23-03
:: Directors update 02-22-03
:: US Airways warns of liquidation -2-22-02
:: Directors Update 02-21-03
:: AA update 02-20-03
:: Directors update 02-20-03
:: Directors Hotline 2-18-03
:: Directors update 2-16-03
:: AA Pension Q&A 2-15-03

 

[RV4]

Dispute Resolution Committee


Represented Groups
:: Alaska
:: Aloha
:: Aloha Island
:: AirTran
:: America West
:: American
:: American Eagle
:: American Trans
:: Continental
:: Continental Express
:: Frontier
:: Hawaiian
:: Horizon
:: Mesaba
:: Northwest
:: Southwest
:: Spirit
:: Sun Country
:: United
:: UPS
:: USAir
:: World Airways

How many of these groups are mechanics?

 

[bagsmasher]

A lot of time would be saved if we all realized that the IAM bought and paid for Mr. Kasher's ruling. He will do whatever it takes to side with the TWALLCer's.

 

[410OhOne]

Sometimes when reading lawyer (pond scum) speak you have to break it down, chew slowly, digest, and deficate it out again. Here it is in a nutshell. Cut and Pasted.

So what do we make of this?????? Does a TWA LLCer exercise his exiting STL/MCI seniority when it comes to bumping? Can he bump before 4/10/03. TWA Flight Attendants, hope some good news also comes your way soon.

BUT, what does it matter in a few weeks anyway?


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").

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,

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.

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 St. Louis and Kansas Cite. Two former TWA LLC mechanics were laid off in St. Louis. The Carrier allowed them to exercise bumping rights into Chicago. Pursuant to the April 29, 2002 Seniority Integration Opinion and Award, Chicago is a city in which former TWA LLC employees are provided with April 10, 2001 seniority. The two former TWA LLC employees referred to above could displace only those employees whose seniority began after that date.


The President of TWU, Local 563 strongly asserts that such employees have no right to bump into Chicago, because they did not possess the two years' occupational seniority necessary to "bump" the system under the AA/TWU Mechanic and Related Agreement.

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 St. Louis and Kansas City. 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 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 llst 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 31112001 shall be blended with the former TWA LLC employees according to the AA employees' occupational seniority.

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 TWLJ1AA_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 April 10, 2003) bump only into cities where TWA seniority is recognized. The result would inevitably be that such employees would not be bumping the least senior protected employee, but rather the least senior employee in those selected cities where TWA seniority- is recognized. In other words, if the DRC relied upon "entrance seniority" to determine bumping rights, the ultimate result would be that the person laid off would not be the least senior unprotected employee.

Accordingly, it is the DRC's finding in the instant case that the two former TWA LLC employees laid off in St. Louis have the right to bump using their "exit" seniority.

The above supplemental award is being issued this 25th day of February, 2003.

 

[sfo2laxfsc]

unless im missing something what's the big deal. twaers can still only bump unprotected employees with whatever seniority their using at the time they bump. does ord have many people hired after after 4/10/01???? secondly i think i agree with you bag's...kasher must have formerly been on the iam or twa's payroll or maybe a retiree....twa fa's should see if they can work a deal to get him on their case...im sure he'd find somekind of loophole in apfa's contract he could twist in their favor!!!

 

[Hopeful]

Interpretation is still the issue. Let's say, for instance, a STL TWA mechanic with 20 years occupational seniority (100%) get's laid off. Now is he using his 20 year seniority to bump and gets adjusted to whatever the rule of entry station he goes to? Or does he use the entry station seniority to bump?
The problem is if he can use his 100% seniority to bump to a station, he can actually bump a mechanic, say with 10 years occupational and then get adjusted once he arrives? Am I reading kasher's ruling correctly? Because he has 20 years at STL but only 5 years at, say JFK, he can actually bump an employee with more occupational time? Can anyone elaborate more on this issue?

 

[sfo2laxfsc]

Interpretation is still the issue. Let's say, for instance, a STL TWA mechanic with 20 years occupational seniority (100%) get's laid off. Now is he using his 20 year seniority to bump and gets adjusted to whatever the rule of entry station he goes to? Or does he use the entry station seniority to bump?
The problem is if he can use his 100% seniority to bump to a station, he can actually bump a mechanic, say with 10 years occupational and then get adjusted once he arrives? Am I reading kasher's ruling correctly? Because he has 20 years at STL but only 5 years at, say JFK, he can actually bump an employee with more occupational time? Can anyone elaborate more on this issue?


hope this helps

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 llst 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 31112001 shall be blended with the former TWA LLC employees according to the AA employees' occupational seniority.

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 TWLJ1AA_agreement.

the way this reads its my belief that twaers can only bump unprotected employees, which includes all twaers and aaers hired after 4/10/01. article 42 of the twu contract is also good reading that would apply in this case. beware though, kasher is lurking and biding time trying to figure out a way to dismantle it in favor of his alma mater twa/iam univ., lol

 

[RV4]

What if NO employees are protected as a result of war?

That would change everything and TWA-LLC employees would then use exit seniority to merge and bump throughout the system.

 

[KC tirechanger]

And Chicken Little said,"The sky is falling!"
Can it be so bad that an "EX" TWA employee is getting a break for a change? Here's one for the Bagmaster! Now what happens if the decide to close STL, or MCI?????Have a good day!!!!

 

[KC tirechanger]

Hey,I'm not trying to be cute here! I just think there are more pressing matters to worry about at the moment!

 

[Buck]

You are correct. There are more important things to worry about. And everyone of us, at least subconsciously, are worry about ourselves.

If MCI and STL close and the former TWA employee is given their full seniority, there will be many AA employees who will be very unhappy. If they are not given their seniority the TWA employee will be angry. There are strong indications that it could be AFW that is being sold? There is no doubt that movement of these AA employees would create chaos.

 

[KC tirechanger]

By the way Buck! I concider myself an American Airlines Employee, not TWA! TWA is dead! The sooner we all realize that the better!

 

[KC tirechanger]

Buck, I've heard it both ways. But we'll all have to cross that bridge,if,and when, we come to it! Beleive me when I say you can drive yourself crazy with all these "what if's"! I, or we,(ex-TWAers) should know,we've been there!(More then once!)

 

[Buck]

You may consider yourself an AA employee, but there are many who, until this is over believe there is a division. It is good that the majority of the AA and former TWA employees do not work side by side. I wonder how those working together will handle the final decision?

 

[KC tirechanger]

Buck,I'm really not surprised at your reply. I half expected it. But the way I see it, that's their problem, not mine!!! And yes,we'll have to wait and see how this all plays out. But again let me say, I believe we have more to worry about than this!