Transcript 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
• 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”
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
How is the Issue Framed?
• 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)