United’s 2 Key Strike Tactics Ruled Illegal

Two key tactics used by United Airlines to pressure its pilots to end their 29-day strike violated federal labor law, a judge in Chicago ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Nicholas J. Bua’s ruling was a major victory for the Air Line Pilots Assn., which had contended that United set forth illegal and unacceptable terms for the settlement of the strike to break the pilots union.

Bua, who had been asked by the airline and the union to settle “back-to-work” issues that prolonged the strike, ordered United to reverse policies that:

--Upgraded the seniority of any pilot willing to cross the picket line.

--Denied employment to more than 500 pilot-trainees who refused to cross picket lines on what was to have been their first day of work.

‘Extremely Satisfied’

John Mazor, a spokesman for the pilots union, said pilots were “extremely satisfied.”

United spokesman Chuck Novak said the airline “will most likely appeal” the ruling.

The two sides had reached a compromise on the key economic issue that triggered the strike--a proposed “two-tier” pay scale to sharply reduce the salaries of newly hired pilots--on the eighth day of the work stoppage. But, because neither side would compromise on back-to-work issues, the strike dragged on for nearly three more weeks.

At one point in the stalemate, United declared that its positions on the pilot trainees and seniority bonuses were non-negotiable.

But, in a 61-page ruling, Bua told the airline it had violated the Labor Railway Act when it implemented a so-called “super seniority” plan at the beginning of the strike May 17. The airline, insisting it was morally obligated to “protect” the workers who crossed the picket line, said non-striking pilots and those hired during the strike would be given preference over strikers in bidding for prestigious flight assignments, even if they had fewer years with the company than a pilot who struck.

Exceeded Limits

Bua’s opinion said that under railway act provisions governing industrial relations during a strike, United was permitted to take only those measures necessary to continue operations. The seniority bonuses for non-strikers, the judge wrote, exceeded that limitation because it represented “coercion and discrimination against union membership.”

The pilot-trainees were trained by the airline in preparation for a strike and told to report to work on the first day of the walkout. But, after heavy lobbying by the pilots union, only four of the trainees decided to cross the picket line. The airline, badly in need of strike-breaking pilots and embarrassed by the show of support for the union, declared it would never hire the trainees.

But Bua said that by requiring the trainees to cross the line to be hired, United had violated a section of the railway act making it illegal to “require any person seeking employment to sign any contract or agreement promising to join or not to join a labor organization.”

Seniority From May 17

He ordered United not only to hire the trainees but to grant them seniority from May 17, which would give the trainees higher seniority than the several hundred pilots United hired from other airlines after the strike began.

Because United plans a major expansion, it should not be difficult to find positions for both the trainees and the other pilots hired during the strike, a United spokesman said.

Bua sided with the airline on another matter, saying United was within its rights in offering higher salaries to strike-breaking pilots than were normally paid to new hires.

The judge was drawn into the settlement because he had been assigned to an unfair-labor-practices lawsuit filed against United by te union in May. To end the strike, the two sides agreed to incorporate the back-to-work issues into the suit. Some of the union’s unfair practices claims were subsequently withdrawn.