SYSTEM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. Division II

Transcription

1 SYSTEM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Division II Case No. M LGA AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. and TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION, Local 513 Vincent Spero Grievance WILLIAM EATON Referee PAUL CHAPDELAINE Company Member JAMES HALE Union Member APPEARANCES: FOR THE UNION JOSEPH G. FARRELL First Vice President LOUIS 'C. MERLINO President Transport Workers Union of America Air Transport, Local Goethals Avenue Jamaica, New York FOR THE COMPANY WILLIAM D. GERRY Manager Employee Relations Eastern Division American Airlines La Guardia Airport Flushing, New York 11371

2 Approximately one hour after he had sent the two down to the hanger to procure the necessary equipment he went to the hanger to ascertain why they had been delayed, and was informed by another Mechanic that "they didn't even know what sling to get." As a result Andrassi examined the IDQ readout for Carmona and the Grievant and discovered that neither was listed as qualified for a B727 engine change. He then went to the oncoming night shift and obtained two Mechanics who were qualified, R. L. Morgan and T. J. Cotter. Manager Andrassi testified that he was informed by the MOD that all three Mechanics requested should be qualified for the reason that the two or three Mechanics available in San Juan were not qualified for the engine change. The MOD anticipated, according to Andrassi, that there might be a "conversion" required, that is, that an engine equipped for replacement as No. 1 or No. 2 might have to be converted as required in order to be installed in the No. 3 position, which would require additional work and skill compared to an engine prepared for installation in the No. 3 position. The parties agree that it had been customary at the New York Stations, both LGA and JFK, when accomplishing engine changes to use as one-half the crew Mechanics qualified for the engine change, and as the other half Mechanics not as yet qualified in order that they might gain experience in the work. It appears that there is little, if any, formal engine change train- 2

3 supervisor or Crew Chief to put him on the IDQ as qualified, the Grievant replied that he had not, for the reason that he thought that he had been qualified after his third engine replacement which was the Rochester field trip. He agreed that as of the date of the arbitration hearing he still had not been listed as qualified for engine change on a B727, for the reason that he had been transferred out of LGA, and assigned to work on other types of aircraft. In the opinion of Maintenance Manager Andrassi it normally requires more than two or three engine changes in order to become proficient at that operation. He particularly emphasized that doing one or two of the several jobs required on the change does not qualify a Mechanic on the remainder of the work, even though he may be working in close proximity with other Mechanics doing work 'other than he himself is accomplishing. ARGUMENTS union The Grievant was illegally bypassed for the field trip of February The on-the-job training is the only route for qualification at LGA, the Grievant had worked on three changes of the No.3 engine of the B727, and he was therefore qualified. In 1986 he underwent the 40 hours of training to be fleet qualified on the airframe and engines of the aircraft. still, by the time of the present grievance he had as yet not 4

4 company It is a recognized principle of industrial relations that Management is authorized to run its business limited only by specific provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Nothing in the present dispute shows arbitrariness, discrimination, capriciousness, or bad faith in the assignment of the field trip crew from which the Grievant was excluded. There is no binding past practice contrary to the Company's position. This is a matter which is not governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Qualification is a Management decision, and not completed so far as engine changes are concerned until an employee's name has properly been entered on the IDQ. There is no Union Company agreement on the subject. Rather, qualification has been handled as the Company did in this case for some 30 years, allowing Management to judge qualification for engine changes. If there is any inconsistency in assigning the work by seniority on the field trip list it was the late notice received by Manager Andrassi, and the necessity to get a crew on the last flight to San Juan that night in order not to delay departure of the aircraft the following morning. The Union can point to no requirement which gives to any employee an unqualified preemptory right to a field trip on a particular day. The Union has the burden of proving a contractual violation and has failed to do so. The Grievant was not by- 6

5 occasions. The difficulty with this contention is that there is nothing in the record to show that such experience necessarily qualifies a Mechanic for the engine change. The undisputed fact is that the Grievant's IDQ showed that he had not been so qualified. Nor is there any evidence that the Grievant ever asked a Crew Chief or a Supervisor to find him competent in the engine change by listing him on the IDQ, or that he ever inquired whether he was so listed. That was the information which Supervisor Andrassi had to act upon, in addition to which he testified that he perceived that neither the Grievant nor Carmona, after being sent to the hanger, appeared to be thoroughly familiar with the equipment which would be required for the work. It was that discovery which led him to examine the IDQ of each of those individuals, and subsequently to remove the Grievant from the field trip. The Union has offered the Board of Adjustment four prior decisions for its consideration. The first of these involves the agreement reached between the Union and the Company in regard to engine change practice in New York, Case No. M JFK. That case involved an engine change on a B767 only a week or two after the introduction of that aircraft into service by American Airlines. Moreover, the case involved a grievance over the sequence in which Mechanics had been scheduled for training on the engine change. The Union urged, in the opinion of Referee George S. Ives, "that this unrefuted Verbal Agreement 8

6 sequence of which the Grievant now implicitly complains was never grieved and is not properly before the present Board of Adjustment. Hence, the 60 day "reasonable period" found by the Board of Adjustment in the Idlewild case to have been appropriate for training assignment has no application to the facts of this dispute. Two additional cases cited by the Union do deal with field trip assignments. Case No. M TULE involved the assignment of one F. L. Rike, rather than the grievant, R. J. Apker, who had fewer overtime recorded hours than did Rike. What the Board found in that dispute was that Apker had performed the work previously, as perhaps Rike had as well. The Foreman, however, who assigned the work did not recall that Apker had performed it, and therefore was held to have improperly assigned the work to Rike. That case represents a dispute between two equally qualified Mechanics, one of whom had fewer overtime hours. Applied to the facts of this dispute, and assuming that the Grievant was not qualified, the case supports the Company's assignment of the man with the fewer field overtime hours, Carmona. Finally, the Union cites Case No. M TULE in which Grievant M. W. Ping demonstrated that he had been assigned to work on his own on a contested field trip overtime job. There the Board found that, "Between qualified employees, position on the overtime list determines who shall be chosen not the judgment of the supervisor as to who would be better for the job." The 10

7 SYSTEM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Division II Case No. M LGA AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. and TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION, Local 513 Vincent Spero Grievance WILLIAM EATON Referee PAUL CHAPDELAINE Company Member JAMES HALE Union Member APPEARANCES: FOR THE UNION JOSEPH G. FARRELL First Vice President LOUIS C. MERLINO President Transport Workers Union of America Air Transport, Local Goethals Avenue Jamaica, New York FOR THE COMPANY WILLIAM D. GERRY Manager Employee Relations Eastern Division American Airlines La Guardia Airport Flushing, New York 11371

8 ISSUE AND EVIDENCE The question presented to the System Board of Adjustment is whether Grievant Vincent Spero was improperly by-passed on a field trip selection February , and if so what the remedy shall be. Hearing was held at the Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport on March At that time the Grievant was fully and fairly represented by the Union, was present throughout the hearing, and testified in his own behalf. The Grievant is an Aircraft Mechanic stationed at LaGuardia in New York City. His name was on the field trip list at LaGuardia, he accepted the offer of his Supervisor for a field trip to San Juan Puerto Rico on February , and was subsequently advised that he could not go for the reason that he was not qualified for the work to be done in San Juan. The Union contends that he was qu a l i f i e d, and asks appropriate overtime pay as compensation for his having been by-passed. Work Required Manager of Maintenance at LGA, Frank Andrassi, was called by the MOD at the Tulsa Maintenance Base on February and informed that he needed three Mechanics for a field trip to San Juan to change the No. 3 engine on a B727 aircraft. During the afternoon shift when Andrassi received this information only the Grievant and Mechanic G.A. Carmona were available, and he initially assigned both these Mechanics to the trip. 1

9 Approximately one hour after he had sent the two down to the hanger to procure the necessary equipment he went to the hanger to ascertain why they had been delayed, and was informed by another Mechanic that "they didn't even know what sling to get." As a result Andrassi examined the IDQ readout for Carmona and the Grievant and discovered that neither was listed as qualified for a B727 engine change. He then went to the oncoming night shift and obtained two Mechanics who were qualified, R. L. Morgan and T. J. Cotter. Manager Andrassi testified that he was informed by the MOD that all three Mechanics requested should be qualified for the reason that the two or three Mechanics available in San Juan were not qualified for the engine change. The MOD anticipated, according to Andrassi, that there might be a "conversion" required, that is, that an engine equipped for replacement as No. 1 or No. 2 might have to be converted as required in order to be installed in the No. 3 position, which would require additional work and skill compared to an engine prepared for installation in the No. 3 position. The parties agree that it had been customary at the New York Stations, both LGA and JFK, when accomplishing engine changes to use as one-half the crew Mechanics qualified for the engine change, and as the other half Mechanics not as yet qualified in order that they might gain experience in the work. It appears that there is little, if any, formal engine change train- 2

10 ing at LGA, and that proficiency, hence, qualification, is gained largely through on-the-job training. When a Mechanic is deemed qualified, either a crew chief or a Supervisor may so advise Tulsa, and the information is then registered on that employee's IDQ. In the present dispute it i s agreed that Mechanic Carmona had fewer field trip overtime hours than did the Grievant, so that if both were equally qualified (or in this case equally not qualified, Carmona would be the first offered the work on a voluntary basis. Grievant's Qualification The Grievant was fleet qualified on the B727 in October 1986, as a result of 40 hours of general classroom training on all aspects of the aircraft except avionics. He testified that, as a result of this qualification and as the result of having worked on three separate occasions on a crew changing the No. 3 engine on a B727, he felt qualified to do so. One of those occasions, he testified without contradiction, was a field trip to Rochester upon which he was accompanied by a Production Supervisor who found no deficiencies with his work. Asked whether he would have been qualified to direct five or six other Mechanics on the San Juan field trip the Grievant replied, "I don't see any problem," contending that he had worked on all areas of the engine, and had signed off on all aspects at least once. Asked whether he had requested his 3

11 supervisor or Crew Chief to put him on the IDQ as qualified, the Grievant replied that he had not, for the reason that he thought that he had been qualified after his third engine replacement which was the Rochester field trip. He agreed that as of the date of the arbitration hearing he still had not been listed as qualified for engine change on a B727, for the reason that he had been transferred out of LGA, and assigned to work on other types of aircraft. In the opinion of Maintenance Manager Andrassi it normally requires more than two or three engine changes in order to become proficient at that operation. He particularly emphasized that doing one or two of the several jobs required on the change does not qualify a Mechanic on the remainder of the work, even though he may be working in close proximity with other Mechanics doing work "o t h e r than he himself is accomplishing. ARGUMENTS union The Grievant was illegally bypassed for the field trip of February The on-the-job training is the only route for qualification at LGA, the Grievant had worked on three changes of the No.3 engine of the B727, and he was therefore qualified. In 1986 he underwent the 40 hours of training to be fleet qualified on the airframe and engines of the aircraft. still, by the time of the present grievance he had as yet not 4

12 been given specific engine change training. alternative, he had completed sufficient OJT, OJT was his only but he was not listed as qualified as a result, as he should have been. The engine change at San Juan was the No. 3 engine which it is agreed is the easiest to change on the B727, reason that there is no hydraulic pump on that engine. for the His last previous No. 3 engine change on a B727 had been accompanied by a 32 year veteran Mechanic, Supervisor Nicosia, and no problems had resulted. The Union has submitted evidence that there was oral agreement to the balance between qualified and not qualified Mechanics on such field trips, a balance which has been recognized by the System Board in Case No. M JFK. The Union agrees that the Company does have leeway on a new aircraft, but that does not mean that it is allowed to violate the provisions of Article 28 (b and (c as a general rule. The local rules on field trips apply in this dispute, and under those rules the Grievant had the right to claim a place on the field trip crew. As cases cited to the Board by the Union demonstrate, the present dispute is an example of a subjective judgment made by a Supervisor which the System Board in the past has ruled to be inadmissible. For these reasons the Union asks that the grievance be granted, and that the Grievant be awarded 22 hours at double time, plus four hours at time and one-half. 5

13 Company It is a recognized principle of industrial relations that Management is authorized to run its business limited only by specific provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Nothing in the present dispute shows arbitrariness, discrimination, capriciousness, or bad faith in the assignment of the field trip crew from which the Grievant was excluded. There is no binding past practice contrary to the Company's position. This is a matter which is not governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Qualification is a Management decision, and not completed so far as engine changes are concerned until an employee's name has properly been entered on the IDQ. There is no Union Company agreement on the subject. Rather, qualification has been handled as the Company did in this case for some 30 years, allowing Management to judge qualification for engine changes. If there is any inconsistency in assigning the work by seniority on the field trip list it was the late notice received by Manager Andrassi, and the necessity to get a crew on the last flight to San Juan that night in order not to delay departure of the aircraft the following morning. The Union can point to no requirement which gives to any employee an unqualified preemptory right to a field trip on a particular day. The Union has the burden of proving a contractual violation and has failed to do so. The Grievant was not by- 6

14 passed in an unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious manner. He was at first chosen for the field trip, but removed from it when his Manager discovered that he lacked the qualification for the work. For these reason the Company urges that the System Board of Adjustment deny the grievance. ANALYSIS The parties appear to agree that when a full crew is sent on a field trip from LGA to change an engine on a B727 aircraft, the crew is normally composed of qualified and unqualified Mechanics. But this is not a case where a full crew was sent from LGA. Rather, there was approximately one-half of the crew available in San Juan, all of whom were not qualified. It was for that reason that the MOD in Tulsa requested Manager Andrassi to send three Mechanics who were qualified. He was able to find only two who were qualified, and was therefore confronted with the choice of sending either the Grievant or Carmona as the third Mechanic. It is agreed that between the two, Carmona had the fewer field trip overtime hours, and thus would have been eligible assuming that both he and the Grievant were not qualified. The Union's case, therefore, depends upon its contention that the System Board of Adjustment should find that the Grievant was qualified. This is based upon his having participated in changing a No. 3 engine on a B727 on three prior 7

15 occasions. The difficulty with this contention is that there is nothing in the record to show that such experience necessarily qualifies a Mechanic for the engine change. The undisputed fact is that the Grievant's IDQ showed that he had not been so qualified. Nor is there any evidence that the Grievant ever asked a Crew Chief or a supervisor to find him competent in the engine change by listing him on the IDQ, or that he ever inquired whether he was so listed. That was the information which Supervisor Andrassi had to act upon, in addition to which he testified that he perceived that neither the Grievant nor Carmona, after being sent to the hanger, appeared to be thoroughly familiar with the equipment which would be required for the work. It was that discovery which led him to examine the IDQ of each of those individuals, and subsequently to remove the Grievant from the field trip. The Union has offered the Board of Adjustment four prior decisions for its consideration. The first of these involves the agreement reached between the Union and the Company in regard to engine change practice in New York, Case No. M JFK. That case involved an engine change on a B767 only a week or two after the introduction of that aircraft into service by American Airlines. Moreover, the case involved a grievance over the sequence in which Mechanics had been scheduled for training on the engine change. The Union urged, in the opinion of Referee George S. Ives, "that this unrefuted Verbal Agreement 8

16 pertaining to Mechanical Field Trip Assignments on DC-lO aircraft at the New York station should be considered applicable to the new B767 aircraft in the instant dispute " In the final paragraph of his opinion, Neutral Chairman Ives referred simply to the "purported Verbal Agreement" on the subject, and did not necessarily recognize the general validity of the Agreement. He held that, in any event, it was not applicable in the dispute before the Board at that time. Rather, he simply suggested that, "the existence of such arrangement suggests a feasible program that might be considered by the parties, when this new type of aircraft is fully integrated in the Carrier's System." [emphasis added] There are two observations to be made about this decision: the first is that the issue presented was the training sequence, an issue which has not been grieved by the present Grievant, and which is not at issue in the present dispute; the second is that the Board of Adjustment did not necessarily accept or adopt the "purported verbal Agreement" urged upon it by the Union in that case. Similarly, Case No. M , which arose when what is presently JFK was then Idelwild, also involved an interpretation of Article 23(c and the question whether the assignment of maintenance employees to training classes had been in violation of that provision of the Agreement. Again, the issue was the assignment sequence to training, not an assignment to a field trip, which is the issue in the present dispute. The training 9

17 sequence of which the Grievant now implicitly complains was never grieved and is not properly before the present Board of Adjustment. Hence, the 60 day "reasonable period" found by the Board of Adjustment in the Idlewild case to have been appropriate for training assignment has no application to the facts of this dispute. Two additional cases cited by the Union do deal with field trip assignments. Case No. M TULE involved the assignment of one F. L. Rike, rather than the grievant, R. J. Apker, who had fewer overtime recorded hours than did Rike. What the Board found in that dispute was that Apker had performed the work previously, as perhaps Rike had as well. The Foreman, however, who assigned the work did not recall that Apker had performed it, and therefore was held to have improperly assigned the work to Rike. That case represents a dispute between two equally qualified Mechanics, one of whom had fewer overtime hours. Applied to the facts of this dispute, and assuming that the Grievant was not qualified, the case supports the Company's assignment of the man with the fewer field overtime hours, Carmona. Finally, the Union cites Case No. M-359-7l TULE in which Grievant M. W. Ping demonstrated that he had been assigned to work on his own on a contested field trip overtime job. There the Board found that, "Between qualified employees, position on the overtime list determines who shall be chosen not the judgment of the supervisor as to who would be better for the job." The 10

18 Board found that the award of the work in that case had been a "subjective judgment" by the supervisor, and one not based upon an objective evaluation or qualification. In the present dispute, by contrast, the Grievant, even if he felt himself to have been qualified, had made no effort to see that his qualification was recorded on the IDQ, and had not inquired of his Supervisors whether it had been so recorded. Company testimony that three engine changes, even if as described by the Grievant, would not necessarily qualify him is convincing. Indeed, the Grievant concedes that he had not to the day of the present Board hearing become qualified for a B727 engine change. WILLIAM EATON, Referee April DECISION Grievant Vincent Spero was not improperly by-passed on a field trip selection February The grievance is denied. PAUL CHAPDELAINE Company Member *;zff!~ $-3-90 JAMES HALE Union Member April WILLIAM EATON Referee 11