Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants
489 U.S. 426, 103 L. Ed. 2d 456, 1989 U.S. LEXIS 1197 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), an employer is not required to displace junior employees who chose not to strike or who abandoned a strike (crossovers) in order to reinstate more senior full-term strikers. Protecting crossovers from displacement is a permissible economic self-help measure available to an employer after the parties have exhausted the RLA's dispute resolution procedures.
Facts:
- In March 1984, Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA) and the Independent Federation of Flight Attendants (IFFA) began negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement, which included a complex seniority system for job assignments and furlough protection.
- After two years of unsuccessful negotiations, the parties exhausted the mandatory dispute resolution mechanisms of the RLA.
- On March 7, 1986, the IFFA commenced a strike against TWA.
- During the strike, TWA informed its flight attendants that it would continue operations using non-striking employees, strikers who returned to work ('crossovers'), and new permanent replacements.
- TWA also announced that any job and domicile assignments filled by working flight attendants would remain effective after the strike, and that senior strikers would not be permitted to displace these employees.
- This policy gave senior flight attendants an incentive to cross the picket line to retain their preferred jobs and junior flight attendants an incentive to cross to obtain jobs previously held by senior strikers.
- On May 17, 1986, the IFFA made an unconditional offer on behalf of approximately 5,000 strikers to return to work.
- TWA accepted the offer but refused the Union's demand to displace the crossover employees, instead recalling only the most senior strikers to fill existing vacancies.
Procedural Posture:
- The Independent Federation of Flight Attendants (IFFA) sued Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, seeking, among other things, the reinstatement of senior full-term strikers by displacing junior crossover employees.
- On cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the District Court ruled in favor of TWA, holding that full-term strikers were not entitled to displace the junior crossovers.
- The IFFA, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's ruling, holding that more senior full-term strikers were entitled to displace their junior crossover counterparts.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted a writ of certiorari filed by TWA to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals regarding the displacement of crossover employees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Railway Labor Act (RLA) require an employer, at the conclusion of an economic strike, to displace less senior employees who worked during the strike (crossovers) in order to reinstate more senior full-term striking employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No, the Railway Labor Act (RLA) does not require an employer to displace less senior crossover employees in order to reinstate more senior full-term strikers. An employer's decision to protect the job status of crossovers is a lawful economic self-help weapon analogous to the right to hire permanent replacements. Drawing an analogy to the NLRA and the rule from NLRB v. Mackay Radio, the Court found that protecting crossovers is a legitimate measure to continue business operations. Unlike the grant of superseniority struck down in NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., TWA's policy does not create a permanent 'cleavage' in the workforce because once reinstated, full-term strikers retain their full seniority for all future purposes. The policy does not diminish their seniority rights; it only means that positions filled by working employees are not considered 'available' at the strike's end. To hold otherwise would penalize employees who chose not to strike in order to benefit those who did.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, the RLA requires an employer to use a neutral criterion like seniority for reinstatement, which means displacing less senior crossover employees to reinstate more senior strikers. The employer's policy constitutes discrimination on the basis of protected union activity, which is forbidden by § 2 Fourth of the RLA. The Court’s decision allows an employer to penalize employees who remained faithful to the strike in order to benefit those who abandoned it. This 'divide and conquer' tactic is 'inherently destructive' of the right to strike by creating competition among union members and undermining the group's collective action. Unlike hiring outside replacements, which pressures the group as a whole, favoring crossovers specifically targets the solidarity of the bargaining unit. After a strike, an employer must allocate available jobs based on a neutral principle like seniority, not based on an employee's participation in the strike.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
No, but the employer's refusal to reinstate full-term strikers by retaining junior crossovers is unlawful unless the employer can demonstrate that the policy was 'truly necessary' for its continued operations during the strike. Neither the majority's per se rule allowing the conduct nor Justice Brennan's per se rule forbidding it is correct. Citing Railway Clerks v. Florida East Coast R. Co., the proper standard under the RLA requires balancing the carrier's need to operate against the employees' rights. A carrier's action that infringes on the right to strike is permissible only if it is 'truly necessary' for continued operations, a strict standard that should be proven on a case-by-case basis. There should be no presumption that offering permanence to crossovers is necessary. Therefore, the case should have been remanded for a factual inquiry into whether TWA’s crossover policy was truly necessary to maintain service during the strike.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens an employer's position during an economic strike under the Railway Labor Act by extending the principles of the permanent replacement doctrine to cover employees who cross the picket line. By categorizing the protection of crossovers as a permissible economic weapon rather than an 'inherently destructive' practice, the Court provides employers with a powerful tool to weaken a union's solidarity during a strike. The ruling creates a strong incentive for individual employees to abandon a strike to protect or improve their job positions, thereby diminishing the union's collective bargaining power and making successful strikes more difficult to sustain. Future litigation in this area will focus on the line between permissible self-help and conduct that is 'inherently destructive' of employee rights.
