10

Weighing this request against the evidence presented to us on prevailing practice elsewhere, we have come to the conclusion that a good case can be made for liberalizing vacation pay accruing to long-service employees. We find that there has been a trend in this direction. throughout American industry. While relatively few contracts in this country now provide 4 weeks of vacation after 15 years, the Board thinks that liberalization is justified in an industry which needs stability of service from the skilled men represented by this Union and which requires from the men a special devotion to duty in the interest of the traveling public.

Accordingly, we recommend 4 weeks of paid vacation after 15 years of service.

C. HEALTH AND WELFARE PROGRAMS

In this area the Union proposed that the entire cost of the individual Carrier Health and Welfare plans shall be borne by the Carrier and that all plans shall be liberalized to provide full coverage for employees and dependents. The Union emphasized that Eastern has already assumed the full cost of these programs and that the Union recommendation is supported by the prevailing practice in industry generally.

The Carriers contended that current benefits under their plans exceed those typical of industry generally but nevertheless offered to make an additional contribution of 3 cents per hour in the second year of the contract against premiums for dependents coverage under presently exisiting group insurance plans. The Carriers stated that with this addition the average cost to the Carriers of current plans would be 17.4 cents per hour compared with an average employee contribution of 2.6 cents per hours.

The Board has taken note of these facts and others in the record and recommends against any increase in Carrier contributions at this time. The Union has not proposed and the Carriers have not offered an improved plan or additional benefits. Since the scope and coverage of the plans would remain unchanged an additional Carrier contribution of 3 cents per hour beginning the second year would simply result in an increase in employee compensation by this amount. The Board believes it is in the interests of both parties at this time to deal with increased cash compensation in connection with wage rate adjustments and has done so under paragraph 4 of Section A, above.

11

D. PENSION PLANS

The pension plan of National Airlines is already noncontributory and the Union requested that the other four Carriers assume the full cost of their plans.

The Carriers rejected the request emphasizing that although a majority of pension plans in industry generally are noncontributory, they usually provide a lower level of benefits. They point out that the Carriers' plans provide an average earned benefit of $8.68 per month as compared with a median industrial benefit earned of $2.75 per month; and which exceed average earned benefits under noncontributory plans in the automobile industry ($4.25), the aerospace industry ($4.24 to $4.75), and the steel industry ($5).

Here, as in the case of Health and Welfare benefits, the Board has studied the competing considerations stressed by the parties, but directs attention to the fact that the issue as presented does not relate to employee benefits under the plan but solely to the means of financing them. The Union proposal to transfer the cost of four plans to the Carriers is thus a request for additional compensation equal to the cost of the plan. Since we have already responded to the request for higher wage rates we recommend that this request be withdrawn.

E. OVERTIME RULES

The Union has proposed a sharp upward adjustment of pay for overtime work. Where existing rules call for time-and-a-half, the Union now would substitute double time. Similarly, where double time applies, the Union now proposes triple time.

The record before us offers no specific reasons for these changes except references to trends in other industries and general allegations of the need for severe penalties to minimize the use of overtime. We find it hard to square the stress on penalties with several of the local issues put before us, where the interest of employees in working overtime was demonstrated. We find it harder still to follow the comparisons with other industries.

The evidence available to us suggests that in this industry, above most others, overtime work is necessarily an adjunct of regular operations. Variations in weather, equipment changes, enforced delays in service, rescheduling of flights, are common features of airline. operations in the present stage of technological development. Overtime work for service employees is an inevitable and frequent result. While we accept the notion that the Carriers, like other employers,

12

should be discouraged from misuse of overtime, we cannot accept the contention that they should be penalized severly for resorting to this means of meeting their undoubted obligation to the public.

Accordingly we recommend that the overtime proposals by the Union be withdrawn.

F. HOLIDAY PROVISIONS

The Union has proposed an increase in the number of holidays from seven to eight, the eighth to be Good Friday. In addition, for work on holidays the Union requests holiday pay plus double time for all hours worked, with a minimum of 8 hours' pay; if more than 8 hours are worked on holidays, the excess is to be paid for at triple time rate.

The Union introduced several foreign flag carrier agreements to show that they provide for more than eight paid holidays. Northeast Airlines, the railroad companies, and many other major industries already have eight paid holidays.

The Carriers rejected an eighth holiday and, in particular, rejected Good Friday because on this day there is no significant decrease in airline traffic and in most instances employees would be required to work. The Board notes, in passing, that one of the existing paid holidays, Washington's Birthday, has even less of a decrease in traffic than Good Friday. The Carriers further argue that seven paid holidays is in accord with domestic trunk airline practice.

The existing contracts require that the Carriers compensate employees who work overtime on holidays at double time rates. The Union position is that employees should not be required to work overtime on holidays and that the double time provision is not a sufficient deterrent to prevent the Carriers from deliberately scheduling such overtime.

The Carriers reply that there is no scheduled overtime on holidays; that overtime is required only because of scheduling difficulties; that a heavier penalty would only increase airline costs without reducing overtime requirements.

The record clearly supports the existence of a trend to more liberal holiday provisions; Good Friday is observed as a religious day by many employees; Good Friday is accepted in other agreements as a suitable vacation day. The Board is unable to endorse the Union proposal for penalty holiday overtime first, because this is a roundthe-clock industry with 24-hour commitments to its customers; second, because this underlies the contract between the parties; and third, because this fact is well known to and accepted by all airline employees.

13

The Board recommends that an eighth holiday, Good Friday, be granted by the Carriers and that the Union proposals for penalty holiday overtime be withdrawn.

G. HOURS OF SERVICE

The Union has proposed that the 30-minute meal period now taken without pay as a break in each 8-hour working day, be compensated and treated henceforth as a portion of the hours worked.

The effect of this proposal would be to reduce the time of each shift from 81⁄2 hours (including an uncompensated half hour) to 8 hours (fully compensated). The further effect would be to eliminate the overlaps between incoming and outgoing shifts which now occur during the last half hour each outgoing shift spends on the job.

The Union has contended in the hearings that elimination of shift overlaps would aid efficiency. The Carriers disagree. They argue that these overlaps are vital to assure effective personnel transmission of job information, tools, and work directives between shifts. It is the view of the Board that the Carriers' position was the sounder one on this issue.

Beyond this issue we perceive another which becomes decisive in our view; namely, that a growing and regulated industry, faced by increasing competition for skilled personnel should not be asked to put into effect a shorter workweek. We recommend, therefore, that this proposal by the Union be withdrawn.

H. LICENSE PREMIUMS

The Union originally proposed that any employee required to have or use later modified to any "mechanic" and "have and use”— any license issued by the FCC or FAA should receive additional compensation in the amount of 10 cents per hour for each license required. This proposal was based primarily upon the alleged additional responsibility of the license holder in releasing aircraft or signing for aircraft work.

The carriers rejected the Union proposal both because of its cost and because there is little or no additional responsibility for the license holder. The Carriers argued that a mechanic who signs maintenance releases does not vouch for airworthiness; that a mechanic may be fined by the Federal Aviation Agency for personal failures whether or not he holds a license; that no domestic trunk carrier currently pays such a license premium.

66-690 0-66- -10

14

In treating the wage issue this Board provided substantial pay differentials for mechanics and higher classifications; the license holders are all within this group. Since the added exposure to disciplinary action relied on by the Union is neither diminished nor remedied by a pay premium requirement, we recommend that the Union's pro- . posal for license premiums be withdrawn.

V. LOCAL ISSUES1

A. EASTERN AIRLINES AND DISTRICT 100

1. CARRIER PROPOSALS

(a) Eastern Proposal No. 1

The Carrier has proposed a change in the overtime provision, Article 14(c), to provide system overtime to replace local rules. It also proposes to eliminate the present bypass penalty pay provision in the agreement.

The 1963 collective bargaining agreement between Eastern Airlines and District 100 provided that the parties should meet to agree on system overtime rules. The Carrier contends that since that time agreement in principle has been reached on a series of system overtime rules but the final language has not been settled. The principal point still in contention between the parties is the Carrier's request for elimination of bypass penalty pay.

The Carrier contends that the current rules foster a great number of grievances; it has introduced evidence that overtime grievances have increased from 8 percent to 26 percent of all grievances between 1960 and 1965. The Carrier urges that system rules be agreed upon to permit standard administration of overtime. It is the Carrier's position that, under the present system, errors are difficult to avoid, particularly in emergency situations, and that the proposed system rules would decrease the likelihood of mistakes and disputes.

The Union's primary objection is to the elimination of the bypass penalty. The penalty has been in the collective bargaining agreement since 1961. The Union contends that problems arise under it because supervisors fail to offer work to the right man. The Union agrees that there are many grievances on overtime issues but contends that the fault lies with management.

1 For convenience the Board has numbered each of the Carrier and Union proposals consecutively. The substance of each proposal will enable the parties to relate this numbering system to the numbering and lettering system used by the parties in the transcript of the hearing.