1 / 3

TWA v. IFFA

TWA v. IFFA. No obligation on part of employer to place reinstated strikers in exact same situation in which they would have been but for the strike Erie Resistor does not extend to all post-strike differences in ee status

jace
Download Presentation

TWA v. IFFA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TWA v. IFFA • No obligation on part of employer to place reinstated strikers in exact same situation in which they would have been but for the strike • Erie Resistor does not extend to all post-strike differences in ee status • Court views strike as a “gamble” for which strikers must accept the consequences • “rough and tumble” concept • strikers viewed as “gamblers” • crossovers viewed as “nongamblers”

  2. TWA v. IFFA(continued) • Frames of Reference for Applying Precedent of Erie Resistor • Majority: Erie Resistor involves using seniority rights to discriminate; TWA does not involve a diminution of relative seniority rights; legal to maintain crossovers and strikers in domiciles • Dissent: Erie Resistor defines discrimination as existing when there are post-strike effects of self-help; there are post-strike effects in TWA and therefore TWA acted unlawfully

  3. Majority: “We decide today whether, at the end of a strike, an employer is required by the Railway Labor Act . . . to displace employees who worked during the strike in order to reinstate striking employees with greater seniority.” (429. U.S. 428) Dissent: “The issue in this case is whether under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) an employer, in allocating available jobs among members of a bargaining unit at the conclusion of a strike, may discriminate against full-term strikers by giving preference to employees who crossed the picket line to return to work before the strike was over.” (429 U.S. 444) How is the Issue Framed?

More Related