Mitchell v. Continental Airlines, Inc., CIV.A.H-04-3470.
| Decision Date | 05 August 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A.H-04-3470.,CIV.A.H-04-3470. |
| Citation | 416 F.Supp.2d 535 |
| Parties | Marilyn MITCHELL, Kevin Bale, and Susan Boorstein, Plaintiffs, v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC. and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Robin E Curtis, Louis K. Obdyke, IV, Continental Airlines Inc, Houston, TX, Jon A Geier, Paul Hastings et al, Washington, DC, for Continental Airlines Inc., Defendant.
Carol Cohen Nelkin, Stuart M Nelkin, Nelkin and Nelkin, Houston, TX, for Kevin Bale, Marilyn Mitchell, Susan Boorstein, Plaintiffs.
John A Edmond, Guerrieri Edmond et al, Washington, DC, Marc A Zito, Jones & Granger, Houston, TX, for International Association Of Machinists And Aerospace Workers, Defendant.
Plaintiffs, Marilyn Mitchell, Kevin Bale, and Susan Boorstein, bring this action against Continental Airlines, Inc. (Continental) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IMAW) seeking to vacate the Decision of the Chairman and Award of the System Board of Adjustment (Decision and Award) in the arbitration between IMAW and Continental on grievances brought by Mitchell, Bale, and others regarding Continental's retroactive adjustment of flight attendants' seniority dates. Pending before the court is Plaintiffs' Petition for Review (Docket Entry No. 1). The parties agree that the case should be resolved by dispositive motion.1 For the reasons explained below, the court concludes that the petition should be denied, and this action dismissed.
Plaintiffs are Continental flight attendants whose employment is governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Continental and the IAMAW under which the IAMAW serves as the exclusive bargaining representative for all flight attendants.2 The CBA contains, inter alia, procedures for resolving grievances over the construction and application of its terms, which provide for final and binding arbitration before a Systems Board of Adjustment.3
Continental flight attendants accrue various types of seniority, which are classified as either competitive or non-competitive. The CBA requires Continental to post biannually a list of flight attendants' competitive seniority dates. Flight attendants have thirty days after the list is posted to protest errors. Competitive seniority is not at issue in this case. (PR ¶ 14) The CBA does not require Continental to post flight attendants' non-competitive seniority dates. (PR ¶ 15) Instead, non-competitive seniority dates are communicated to flight attendants in various ways. Pay seniority dates appear on pay stubs. Vacation seniority is reported in annual statements to individual flight attendants. Jump-seat and pass-riding seniority is based either on the "JA" entry in Continental's SONIC computer system or on the date showing on a company identification card. Flight attendants requesting tickets on-line have sometimes been surprised to find that their jump-seat and pass-riding seniority dates have been adjusted without notice. (PR ¶17)
In 1996 Boorstein learned that her jump-seat seniority date had been changed from her date of hire, November 11, 1968, to a date in 1971. (PR ¶62) When she belatedly received a cake for her 30th anniversary with Continental, Boorstein learned that her company service date had also been changed. (PR ¶63) Boorstein alleges that when she inquired about the adjustments "her seniority was again adversely and unequally impacted." (PR ¶64)
In 1997 Mitchell discovered that her vacation seniority date was less advantageous than her records indicated it should have been. (PR ¶25) Mitchell alleges that when she questioned the accuracy of her vacation seniority date, Continental readjusted it even less favorably. (PR ¶25) In 1999 Mitchell contacted the IAMAW "about various seniority and contract violations." (PR ¶ 31) Plaintiffs allege that during a meeting with a representative of Continental's Human Resources office Mitchell was told that "Continental was aware that everyone had not been similarly adjusted . . . but . . . that Continental did not have the time or the manpower to go through the records of 25,000 flight attendants to determine if the seniority dates were adjusted as they should have been." (PR ¶ 35)
On May 24, 2000, Mitchell filed grievance no. 05446 in which she complained that on May 20, 2000, unfair, adverse adjustments were made to her non-competitive seniority dates. (PR ¶ 37) In the top, right-hand corner of the grievance is a stamped notice signed and dated by Mitchell that states: "I hereby authorize the International Association of Machinists, with full power of attorney, to represent me in all stages of the Grievance Procedure in the presenting and settling of this grievance."4 Mitchell's grievance was denied following both a step-one hearing held on July 12, 2000, and a step-two hearing held on September 8, 2000. (PR ¶38) Although originally set for April 10, 2001, arbitration before the National Mediation Board took place in Washington, D.C., on February 5-6, 2002. (PR ¶¶ 38-41)
In 1997 Bale discovered that his vacation seniority date was less advantageous than his records indicated it should have been. (PR ¶¶ 50-51) In the fall of 2000 Bale contacted Continental's Human Resources Department to inquire about his non-competitive seniority dates. (PR ¶ 53) Plaintiffs allege that on October 30, 2000, Continental advised Bale that his seniority dates had been adjusted for company offered leaves that he had taken between 1991 and 1995. (PR ¶53) Based on Bales' rate of pay, plaintiffs allege that Bale's vacation seniority date must have been adjusted sometime after 1996 and before Bale was to have received an extra week of vacation in 1997. (PR ¶¶ 51 and 55)
On August 15, 2000, Bale filed a grievance no. 06082 in which he complained that on that date Continental engaged in an unfair and unequal adjustment of non-competitive jump-seat seniority.5 (PR ¶ 57) On June 27, 2001, Bale filed grievance no 06540 in which he complained that on May 30, 2001, Continental violated the CBA by including Diane Carr and others in the same category (i.e., managerial employees at the level of director or above) in the jump-seat seniority system.6 (PR ¶ 57) In the top, right-hand corner of each of Bale's grievances is a stamped notice signed and dated by Bale that states: "I hereby authorize the International Association of Machinists, with full power of attorney, to represent me in all stages of the Grievance Procedure in the presenting and settling of this grievance."7 Each of Bale's grievances was denied following both step-one and step-two hearings.8 (PR ¶57) Continental explained that Bale's non-competitive jump-seat seniority date had been adjusted in compliance with various work rules and agreements that allow flight attendants to maintain but not to accrue non-competitive seniority during periods of personal and/or company offered leave. An arbitration was scheduled for February 5, 2002. (PR 57)
Mitchell's grievance no. 05446 and Bale's grievance nos. 06082 and 06540 were considered together with grievances filed by three other individuals (Sonnichsen, Bice, and Shaw) at an arbitration hearing conducted by a three-person System Board (Board) consisting of a union representative, a company representative, and a neutral third-party chair on February 5-6, 2002, in Washington, D.C.9 "The five individual grievances, which [were] brought together for decision, all involve[d] adjustments to vacation, pass, or company seniority, and all of which were made substantially after the events occurred which occasioned the adjustment of seniority by the company."10 11 The Board identified the issue in dispute—"Were the various adjustments which were made to flight attendant seniority proper, as in some cases they were made long after the events which caused the adjustments, and, if not, what is the appropriate remedy?"12
The IAMAW argued to the Board that
the doctrine of estoppel bars the company from retroactively altering seniority dates to correct errors that the company has permitted to stand for long periods of time. It further contend[ed] that the doctrine of laches bars the company from belatedly asserting a right to adjust seniority. Finally, the [IAMAW] contend[ed] that the principles of disparate treatment prohibit the company from selectively adjusting seniority rights. As a remedy the [IAMAW] suggest[ed] that: (1) the company be prohibited from making any adjustments to grievants' seniority to reflect an event that occurred more than one year in the past; (2) that the company be required to make grievants whole for the vacation and other benefits lost as a result of the company's adjustments to their seniority; (3) that, in the future, the company may only look back for one year in making adjustments to seniority, and that flight attendants have one year in which to challenge such seniority adjustments; and (4) that for a sixty (60) day period following the issuance of the decision in this case, flight attendants may notify the company that it retroactively adjusted their seniority to reflect an event that occurred more than one year ago and that the company shall rescind such adjustments and make the affected flight attendants whole for the vacation and other benefits lost as a result of the company's adjustments to their seniority.13
Continental argued that it had the right to adjust flight attendants' non-competitive seniority dates in compliance with work rules and agreements that allow flight attendants to maintain but not to accrue non-competitive seniority during periods of personal and/or...
To continue reading
Request your trial