So what it mean to "dovetail" seniority

[UALbagboy]

Recently the Teamster sent out a flyer saying they plan to integrate the seniority list by dovetailing it with DOH. Does this mean to go by DOH only or are they going to go one for one.

When I say one for one, I mean are they going to put a list together such as the example below.

1) UAL #1
2) CAL #1
3) UAL #2
4) CAL #2
5) UAL #3
6) CAL #3

So one for one means, put a UAL guy on the list, then take the next CAL guy and put him on, then another UAL guy, then a CAL guy.

So in tern a 10 year CAL guy could end up senior to a 15 year UAL guy?

Am I reading it wrong? What does dovetail mean?

 

[jimntx]

Nice thing about words like dovetail...they can mean anything you (or the union) want them to mean. Dovetail may also mean what is sometimes called proportional seniority. In proportional seniority, you look at the two seniority lists and try to combine them in such a way that someone in the top 10% of the separate lists would be in or just below the top 10% of the combined list. In this kind of combination, only the people on the percentage borderlines have much danger of "moving down" in relative seniority.

Now, this is not a bad system at all if both lists have similar DOH seniority. However, if one seniority list has people with 30 or 40 years on it, and the other list has 10 years as the most senior, then proportional becomes pretty unfair. People with 10 years are in the same percentile as people with 40 years. Almost as unfair as stapling one group below the other.

 

[700UW]

Integrating seniority is never easy. In Continental’s history there have been several seniority integrations, some of which were unilaterally implemented by the Lorenzo-led company when there weren’t any contracts in effect. The IAM is committed to integration of seniority in a way that is fair and equitable for all flight attendants.

One common method of integration is “dovetailing” seniority. That would be to integrate by your current Continental date of hire into the flight attendant classification. Whatever Continental seniority date you have today, as well as United flight attendants seniority dates, would be merged into a single list by date of hire.

Historically, the IAM’s seniority integration policy has been to integrate by the current date of hire into the specified classification (dovetailing). However, the IAM recognizes that sometimes issues arise that require more consideration than a simple dovetailing. The IAM will create seniority integration committees made up of representatives from both pre-merger airlines to resolve seniority disputes when they arise. If agreements cannot be reached, the issues will be submitted to a neutral arbitrator for resolution.

The IAM has a history of protecting seniority in mergers - that is not the case for all unions. For example, when United bought Pan Am's Pacific routes in 1985, AFA argued before a neutral arbitrator that Pan Am flight attendants should be stapled to the bottom of the combined seniority list.

In contrast, when US Airways and America West merged, the IAM's merger policy protected the seniority dates of employees at both carriers, even if they were formerly members of another union.

How seniority is used is a matter of collective bargaining and would need to be addressed in negotiations with United following a merger and resolving representation issues.

 

[john john]

Historically, the IAM’s seniority integration policy has been to integrate by the current date of hire into the specified classification (dovetailing). However,

IAM tried screwing the AMFA-represented Trump Shuttle mechanics when USAir purchased the Trump Shuttle. The affected mechanics had to undergo a lengthy court battle to get their rightful seniority, but they prevailed in the end.
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/378/378.F3d.269.03-7798.html
The integration, or "mainlining," process required USAir and IAM to come to an agreement as to how plaintiffs' seniority status would be calculated with respect to their peers in the mainline workforce. IAM has a longstanding policy of "dovetailing" seniority lists, which involves blending the two employee groups based on their pre-merger employment dates at each of the merging airlines. In applying this policy to plaintiffs, IAM had to decide what it would consider to be plaintiffs' start dates at Shuttle. Plaintiffs felt that IAM should apply their Eastern start dates because they viewed their move from Eastern to Trump Shuttle as a "transfer." IAM, however, argued that plaintiffs resigned from Eastern prior to accepting employment at Trump Shuttle and, therefore, they should only be accorded seniority classification from their start-dates at Trump Shuttle.

In this case, there was ample evidence, when viewed in the aggregate, to support the verdict. IAM claimed at trial that its motivation for stripping plaintiffs of their Eastern seniority was their having resigned from Eastern. This claim was belied by the position it had taken during the Eastern bankruptcy proceeding that plaintiffs were to be considered as merely having transitioned from Eastern to Trump. Once plaintiffs showed that IAM's purported neutral motivation was pretextual, they only needed to convince the jury that the single other motivation suggested by either party — animus as a result of plaintiffs' association with AMFA — was the reason for IAM's adverse decision.

50
Plaintiffs met this burden by producing various pieces of evidence pointing to this rationale. For instance, at least one plaintiff testified to personal knowledge of the acrimony between IAM and AMFA. Further, at least one IAM official testified as to the hostility between the groups. In addition, with respect to plaintiffs themselves, the minutes of an IAM local lodge stated that plaintiffs "voted for AMFA. IAM will now go for their jobs." Similarly, various IAM union members petitioned IAM officials not to accord plaintiffs their Eastern seniority because they voted in favor of AMFA. Viewing this evidence in the aggregate and in light of Seham's corroborating testimony that IAM officials were themselves hostile towards those associated with AMFA, the jury reasonably could have believed that IAM was swayed by the sentiments expressed by its members and officials.

 

[700UW]

Get the facts of the case right, the EA mechanics had to resign from EA and then got hired by TS, there by stopping employment with EA and had new hire dates on the shuttle.

 

[john john]

Get the facts of the case right, the EA mechanics had to resign from EA and then got hired by TS, there by stopping employment with EA and had new hire dates on the shuttle.

The IAM has a history of protecting seniority in mergers - For example,

OK
"For example" USAir purchased the Trump Shuttle.


http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/378/378.F3d.269.03-7798.html


" IAM claimed at trial that its motivation for stripping plaintiffs of their Eastern seniority was their having resigned from Eastern. This claim was belied"
"""Plaintiffs' first witness was Raymond Grebey, a former Trump official. Through Mr. Grebey, plaintiffs introduced a legal memorandum from 1991 that was filed in the Eastern bankruptcy proceeding. The memorandum demonstrated that IAM had, at the time of the bankruptcy proceeding, taken the position that plaintiffs should be treated as "transitional employees" from Eastern to Trump, rather than as "typically resigning employees." This evidence was crucial to plaintiffs' case because it undermined IAM's position at trial that a key consideration in reaching its seniority decision was that plaintiffs had resigned from their positions at Eastern before becoming Trump employees, resulting in the loss of their Eastern seniority status. In other words, plaintiffs used this evidence to argue that IAM's position at trial was pretextual. The jury's verdict suggests that this evidence had that effect.""""

 

[gatemech]

DATE OF HIRE IS THE FAIREST INTEGRATION.
Seniority is everything ! ! ! ! !

 

[gtd]

Don't trust the Teamsters. See this link: My linkl

 

[xUT]

Don't trust the Teamsters. See this link: My linkl

link doesn't work.

 

[Bob Owens]

Get the facts of the case right, the EA mechanics had to resign from EA and then got hired by TS, there by stopping employment with EA and had new hire dates on the shuttle.

AMR has Eagle and AA. Employees can move from Eagle to AA and retain their company seniority even though they have to resign from Eagle before hiring on to AA.

Are you claiming that the fact that the Trump Shuttle went AMFA had nothing to do with the IAM decision and that if the TRUMP guys had been IAM the IAM would have had the same position?


While I think dovetailing is probably the best way to get through this the only thing I'd hate to see is old time UAL guys get bumped down by old time CAL guys who scabbed back in the 80s. Scabs should not get credit for years they scabbed towards excercising their union won rights. I think they should get DOH with a max date pegged at the point where the IAM was busted or called off the strike.