Opinion ID: 430489
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Presence of Seniority Dispute

Text: 13 The predominant issue in this case involves the proper characterization of the complaint. If the dispute involves seniority rights, then it arises under the labor protection provision which requires fair and equitable integration of the seniority lists, 17 and so clearly comes under the sway of the CAB. If, on the other hand, the issue really involves representational rights--as the TWU and Pan Am claim it does 18 --then it raises issues reserved to the NMB, and the CAB has at least arguably overstepped its bounds. 19 14 The CAB determined that the dispute did involve seniority rights. 20 The record shows that this conclusion was not arbitrary and capricious. The kernel of the dispute raised by the IBT is seniority rights. Any relief granted by the arbitrator or the CAB must be couched in terms of seniority rights. The dispute is thus at least facially a seniority dispute. 15 The TWU and Pan Am argue nonetheless that the case really involves representational rights. They assert that the IBT, through the guise of protecting its members' seniority rights under the LPPs, really seeks to force Pan Am to treat it as the bargaining representative of a class far larger than that allotted to it by the NMB. 16 This argument fails to persuade. The IBT does not seek to acquire an expanded representational status, nor does it strive to seek future recognition as the bargaining representative for those crafts and classes now represented by TWU. Nor does the IAM seek to perpetuate its representative status in the new, merged airline. Nothing the unions seek would alter the class and craft system approved by the NMB. At most, if the IBT and IAM should win before the arbitrator, some individual employees would be allowed a one-time opportunity to change from one class and craft to another. While some individual employees would be represented by a different union if the arbitrator accepted the two unions' arguments, that alone does not render this a representational dispute. What matters is that although individual employees might for whatever reasons change jobs, the boundaries of the bargaining units would remain unchanged. 21