Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants
United States Supreme Court
489 U.S. 426 (1989)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA), and the Independent Federation of Flight Attendants (the union) had a collective-bargaining agreement under which flight attendants with the most seniority had the best opportunity to obtain their preferred job assignments and were least likely to be affected by job furloughs. The collective-bargaining agreement expired, and after exhaustive negotiations, the parties were unable to agree on new terms. About 5,000 union flight attendants went on strike for a total of 72 days. Approximately 1,280 union flight attendants either did not go on strike or returned to work before the strike ended (crossover employees), and TWA also hired about 2,350 new permanent employees during the strike. The crossover and newly hired flight attendants filled the full-term strikers’ positions. When the strike ended, TWA recalled the full-term strikers to take vacant positions as vacancies became available based on seniority. Once restored, the full-term strikers maintained the same seniority rights as if the strike had not occurred. TWA did not, however, displace crossover and newly hired flight attendants from their current positions. The United States Supreme Court was called on to decide whether TWA was required to displace employees who worked during the strike in order to reinstate striking employees with greater seniority.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)
Dissent (Brennan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.