Court Opinion

ID: 9339095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-16 17:45:08.192951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:18.084458
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Upon consideration of the Petition for Rehearing filed by International Paper Company (IPC), the Court has determined that certain minor modifications should be made in its opinion.
IPC claims that portions of the Court’s opinion incorrectly state the facts because of a misinterpretation of remarks of counsel for IPC at oral argument. The portions of the opinion claimed to be in error are as follows:
1. p. 1355. The necessity to serve in every job in a line of progression is still an announced policy of I.P. As proffered at oral argument, an employee must still meet a residency requirement on the job for which he is bidding as well as that of the job immediately below. The cumulative effect of this policy is to nearly eliminate the possibility of job skipping or advanced level entry transfer opportunities.
2. p. 1356. However, to bid on a vacancy, an employee must have fulfilled both the residency period for the job immediately subordinate to the vacancy, as well as the period for the vacancy itself. The latter requirement, while properly left to the district court for determination, should be very closely scrutinized.
3. p. 1356. Another factor that will retard affected class movement and is a result of I.P.’s administration of the 1972 Jackson Memorandum is its present practice of further restricting competition for those vacancies to those either permanently assigned, or then temporarily assigned, to an immediately subordinate job.
After a careful review of the transcript of oral argument the Court has concluded that the suggestions are well taken and that the opinion should be and is hereby modified by inserting the following material in place of the material set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2, and deleting all of the material in paragraph 3.
1. p. 1355. The necessity to serve in every job in a line of progression, (with a few exceptions), is still an announced policy of I.P. As proffered at oral argument, in most cases an employee must still meet a residency requirement on the job immediately below the job for which he is bidding. The cumulative effect of this policy is to severely restrict the possibility of job skipping or advanced level entry transfer opportunities.
2. p. 1356. However, to bid on a vacancy, an employee must have ful*1358filled the residency period for the job immediately subordinate to the vacancy. This requirement, while properly left to the district court for determination, should be very closely scrutinized.
In addition, the final sentence of footnote 35 is deleted.
The petition for rehearing is denied.