High Court to Decide on Reinstating Strikers

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether an airline may be forced to reinstate workers when their strike ends, making necessary the layoffs of trainees and employees who crossed the picket lines.

The court said it will study an appeal by Trans World Airlines in a dispute stemming from a 1986 strike by flight attendants.

TWA and the Independent Federation of Flight Attendants had a three-year contract that expired July 31, 1984. When negotiations failed, the union called a strike on March 7, 1986.

TWA hired more than 1,220 new flight attendants after the strike began. In addition, about 1,280 TWA flight attendants crossed picket lines either at the outset of the walkout or as the strike continued for more than two months.

TWA also placed new flight attendants in training, including 463 who had not completed training when the strike ended May 17, 1986.

The union then filed a federal lawsuit charging TWA with unlawfully refusing to reinstate more than 2,000 workers who had gone out on strike.

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last May that some striking flight attendants were entitled to their old jobs at the expense of all trainees and some flight attendants who had crossed the picket lines.

The appeals court said the strikers should be reinstated if they had more seniority than those, called crossovers, who had not honored the picket lines.

Ruling on Trainees

But the appeals court also said the 1,220 flight attendants hired during the strike could not be dislodged by any of those who stayed out during the strike.

With regard to the crossovers, the 8th Circuit court said they may not be given preferential treatment over striking workers with more seniority “because such action impermissibly discriminates among union members based on the degree of their union activity.”

“An employer may not divide the work force into those who engaged in strike activity and those who did not,” the appeals court said.

It said the 463 trainees cannot be considered permanent replacements in the same category as the 1,220 newly hired flight attendants. Therefore, the trainees “were subject to displacement by returning strikers,” the appeals court said.

The distinctions were made under the Railway Labor Act, which governs airlines as well as railroads.

TWA said it is “simply incomprehensible” to force employees choosing not to strike to give up their jobs in favor of “unsuccessful strikers.”

By a 4-4 vote on March 2, the Supreme Court ruled in another case growing out of the 1986 TWA strike that an airline may be forced to continue collecting union dues from workers after its contract with employees has expired.

TWA sought to discontinue the dues check-off after the strike ended. But the justices’ split vote automatically upheld an 8th Circuit court ruling that the airline may not cancel the check-off provision unless it is agreed to in negotiations with the workers.

The case is TWA vs. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants, 87-548.

Sue as a Group

In another ruling, the Supreme Court let stand a lower court decision that makes it easier for investors to sue their brokers over the collapse in 1984 of a $3-billion oil and natural gas investment fund.

The court, without comment, rejected appeals by three brokerage firms seeking to force investors who lost money in the fund to sue individually rather than as a group.

The case stems from the collapse of the Petro-Lewis fund, in which some 180,000 people purchased securities and limited partnerships from 1970 to 1984. The average initial investment by a limited partner was $8,600.

Robinson-Humphrey Co., Shearson Lehman Hutton and Paine Webber appealed a ruling by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta favoring the investors.

The cases are Robinson Humphrey vs. Sanders, 87-835, and Paine Webber vs. Parker, 87-836.