AIR LINE PILOTS ASS'N, INTERNAT'L v. Trans World Airlines

• Decision Date: 26 March 1962
• Docket Number: No. 13731-3.,13731-3.
• Citation: 203 F. Supp. 438
• Parties: AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

203 F. Supp. 438

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Defendant.

No. 13731-3.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

March 26, 1962.

Dietrich, Tyler, Davis, Burrell & Dicus, Kansas City, Mo., Kreindler & Kreindler, and Cohen & Weiss, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Stinson, Mag, Thomson, McEvers & Fizzell, by Dick H. Woods, Kansas City, Mo., Chadbourne, Parke, Whiteside & Wolff, by Harold L. Warner, Jr., New York City, for defendant.

DUNCAN, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff, an unincorporated association, by and through their representative officers, individually and as representatives of the Air Line Pilots employed by Trans World Airlines, Inc., instituted this suit against the defendant seeking a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to enforce the arbitration award of the TWA-ALPA System Board of Adjustment, and the matter before the court now is for a preliminary injunction.

Plaintiffs allege that the action arises under the Act of May 20, 1926, 44 Stat. 577; 49 Stat. 1189 as amended, U.S.C.A. Title 45 §§ 151 through 188, known as the "Railway Labor Act", and seek to confer jurisdiction upon this court under the provisions of Title 28 §§ 1331-1337 U.S.C.A., and Title 45 §§ 151 through 188.

The evidence reveals that on May 22, 1959, the Air Line Pilots in the service of Trans World Airlines, Inc., and represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the defendant, which agreement was supplemented by certain Memorandum of Understanding. The agreement dealt in part with second officers in the service of Trans World Airlines, Inc., and provided:

"2. That such Second Officer shall be qualified to provide relief at all required flight crew positions except that of pilot in command. Such qualifications shall be the minimum copilot qualifications as required by TWA including at least a commercial pilot's license, instrument rating, and the ability to fly the aircraft. Further, he will be given the opportunity to secure the training and the use of Company facilities, when available, on his own time, to secure Flight Engineer certificate. The Company shall not be required to conduct a flight solely to accommodate the above requirements.

"TRAINING

"3. That a Second Officer who does not possess the required qualifications as herein stated shall be offered the opportunity by the Company to acquire such qualifications or ratings within a reasonable period to be hereinafter agreed upon and shall be otherwise provided with the necessary training to perform the duties assigned to him."

Plaintiffs contend that the defendant has failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. The Air Line Pilots Association, which will hereafter be referred to as "ALPA", submitted a grievance to the TWA-ALPA System Board of Adjustment charging the defendant with the violation of the bargaining agreement and Memorandum of Understanding, because of TWA's failure to train and qualify such second officers in the service of TWA as required by the provisions of the bargaining agreement and as supplemented by the Memorandum of Understanding.

On September 13, 1961, pursuant to a hearing by the System Board of Adjustment, it was determined by the Board that TWA had failed to comply with the bargaining agreement as supplemented by the Memorandum of Understanding, and made the following findings, which were thereafter known as the "Kelliher Award":

"It is the finding of this Board that within thirty (30) days after the rendition of this Award that the Company shall inaugurate and place in effect a program to provide the Second Officers with the opportunity to secure the training and use of Company facilities to secure a Flight Engineer's certificate. This program shall be arranged so that all present Second Officers who expressly elect to secure such training shall be given an opportunity to complete this training within a two-year period from the inauguration of said program.

"All new Second Officers who expressly elect to secure such training to secure a Flight Engineer's certificate should be given an opportunity to complete this training concurrent with their regular Second Officer training."

It is the contention of the ALPA that it was the duty under the "Kelliher Award" to afford the opportunity for training, using the facilities of the defendant at its air base in Kansas City on jet-propelled airplanes.

There is no contention on the part of defendant that the "Kelliher Award" is not binding upon both ALPA and TWA. Defendant's position is that it is complying with the Award, and the evidence reveals that within thirty days of October 6, 1961, it had inaugurated and placed in effect a program to provide Second Officers the opportunity to obtain training to secure a Flight Engineer's certificate.

The first class began November 20, 1961, and by February 21, 1962, three classes had been completed. During that period 114 Second Officers out of approximately 225 TWA second officers had been offered the opportunity to take such training, and approximately 25% of those offered the training had elected to take it.

The flight portion of the training was contracted by Trans World Airlines, Inc., to American fliers of Ardmore, Oklahoma. All of the Second Officers' expenses incident to their training there was borne by the defendant. Their training was conducted in piston type planes and they received no training in jet type planes.

It is plaintiffs' contention that requiring applicants for such training to go to Oklahoma was a violation of the terms of the Award and that the failure to afford training in jet propelled types of planes was also a violation of the terms of the Award.

The Second Officer apparently has little function to perform and his services are confined to riding behind the captain of the jet propelled planes. It is his duty and responsibility to take over in the event of the disability of the captain, the First Officer or the Flight Engineer should he also become disabled or unable to perform his function.

Defendant states that it proposes in the future to carry out the terms of the Award. It has entered into a contract with the Alaskan Air Lines where it will afford the training facilities for the applicants in the future, to be carried out in the same manner as was carried out in Oklahoma. It is defendant's contention that the flight engineer's certificate requirements do not require training only on jet type aircraft.

There is also a tremendous difference in cost of training to the defendant. Flight training on jet propelled planes entails a cost of approximately $1000.00 per hour, whereas training on Constellation aircraft or piston type aircraft costs $150.00 per hour. I find nothing in the Award or in the evidence indicating that it is necessary that the training be confined or limited to the jet type plane.

It is further the contention of the defendant, and it is borne out by the evidence, that under its agreement with the flight engineer group, it cannot put a jet plane into flight without a flight engineer aboard, and that flight...