Opinion ID: 602388
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Morris Award and the Greenbaum Award.

Text: 27 Turning now to the awards, ALPA argues that, contrary to the apparent conclusion of the district court, the Morris and Greenbaum Awards are not inconsistent--that is, the Greenbaum panel correctly placed Plaintiffs in Group 9--and that any detrimental consequences of that placement would have occurred with or without the Morris Award. We disagree. 28 The Greenbaum Award placed J.M. Sims, the pilot least senior to the Plaintiffs, in Group 7, while Plaintiffs were placed in Group 9. ALPA would have us believe that this was due to clear differences in Sims's and Plaintiffs' (1) date of hire, (2) length of active service, (3) employment status as of November 25, 1981, and (4) furlough vulnerability. 29 Based upon the information considered by the Greenbaum panel, this is a defensible position. Sims's date of hire, along with five other Group 7 pilots, was December 10, 1979. His seniority date, according to the September 1, 1981 TXI Flight Operations Manual, is January 14, 1980, meaning that he would have been eligible to begin active service at that time. We know that Sims was recalled from furlough in July 1981 and that he continued active service until the PATCO furlough effective December 1, 1981. We also know that Plaintiffs were recruited shortly after TXI furloughed some of its pilots. Rogers II, at 3. Given his seniority, we must assume that Sims was one of those pilots furloughed sometime prior to October 13, 1980. Therefore, as of November 25, 1981, Sims would have (1) been hired in December 1979, (2) had 13- 1/2 months or less of active service, (3) been currently on active service, and (4) been subject to any future furlough as one of the five least senior former TXI pilots. 30 By comparison, in the absence of the Morris Award, as of November 25, 1981, Plaintiffs would have (1) been hired in October 1980, (2) had no active service, (3) been currently on furlough, and (4) been subject to continuing furlough as the least senior TXI pilots. Clearly, in the absence of the Morris Award, the Greenbaum panel was justified in differentiating between Sims and the Plaintiffs on the basis of active service and current employment status. 31 However, had the Plaintiffs been treated as the Morris Award required them to be, as of November 25, 1981, Plaintiffs would have (1) been hired in October 1980, (2) had roughly 4- 1/2 months active service, (3) been currently in active service, and (4) been only marginally more furlough vulnerable than Sims. Now the distinction between Sims and the Plaintiffs becomes much less compelling. True, Sims's hire date was some 10 months before Plaintiffs', but the two (former pre-merger CAL) pilots immediately above Sims in Group 7 were hired in February 1978, as was the most senior former TXI pilot in Group 7, some 21 months before Sims, and the most senior pilot in Group 7 was hired in January 1977. Surely, then, the less-than-one-year difference in date of hire could not be dispositive of Sims's placement in Group 7 and Plaintiffs' placement in Group 9. 32 With the Morris Award in place, there is no discernible difference between Sims's and the Plaintiffs' current employment status and furlough vulnerability. Furthermore, since Plaintiffs were currently in active service, they should have been allowed to leapfrog all of Group 8, none of whom was in active service as of November 25, 1981, and all of whom were more furlough vulnerable than Plaintiffs as a result. Therefore, if the Greenbaum Award were held to be consistent with the Morris Award, we would be required to find that the difference between Sims's 13- 1/2 months or less of active service and Plaintiffs' 4- 1/2 months of (constructive) active service was significant enough to separate Plaintiffs from Group 7 and to interpose another 400 pilots who were already on furlough as of the Greenbaum panel's self-imposed cut-off date. 7 We cannot accept this conclusion. 33