AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. MAINTENANCE/STORES SYSTEM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GENERAL BOARD. Case No. M TULE. Company Member Local 514

Transcription

1 AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. MAINTENANCE/STORES SYSTEM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GENERAL BOARD Case No. M TULE AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. ) ) WILLIAM EATON ) Referee and ) ) RICK GATT TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION, ) Company Member Local 514 ) ) JIM HALE L. Kopanke ) Union Member ) APPEARANCES: FOR THE UNION MARION FINLEY President Transport Workers Union, Local 514 Air Transport Division, AFL-CIO East Pine Street Tulsa, Oklahoma FOR THE COMPANY JERRY NEVILLE Labor Relations Representative American Airlines, Inc. Maintenance & Engineering Center P. o. Box MD162 Tulsa, Oklahoma

2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The dispute involves the loss of the Grievant's tools and tool box during a period in which it was stored on Company premis~s at the Tulsa Maintenance &.Engineering Base while the Grievant was working as an Aircraft Inspector. The issue to be determined is: Is the Company liable for the Grievant's tools and tool box pursuant to the provisions of Article 27(n) of the TWU Agreement? Hearing was held at the Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport on April At that time the Grievant was fully and fairly represented by the Union, was present throughout the hearing, and testified in his own behalf. Following presentation of evidence, the matter was submitted to the Board of Adjustment upon oral argument at the close of the hearing, and was decided by the Board meeting i n Executive Session directly thereafter, pending preparation of the Referee's written opinion. The Grievant has worked as an Aircraft Mechanic for the Company since 1968 in various specialties including sheet metal, line maintenance, line mechanic, and avionics, and in a number of different stations across the Country. He has twice acted as Crew Chief, and on three occasions as Aircraft Inspector, in each case electing to demote himself back to Aircraft Mechanic after a period of time. The present dispute arose after he bid and was awarded the position of Aircraft Inspector in June 1990, and subsequently again voluntarily demoted himself to Aircraft Mechanic. 1

3 In June 1990 he left his tool chest and most of his tools in a secure area in the APU Shop, which is off the Mechanical and Engineering Base, taking with him only a flashlight, a ten power glass, and a mirror. He testified that he checked his tool box, but not its contents, in May of When he elected to demote himself from Aircraft Inspector to Mechanic in September of 1992 he discovered that the tool box was missing. The Union contends that he is entitled to compensation pursuant to the provisions of Article 29 (n) of the Agreement, while the Company maintains that he has failed to comply with certain conditions required of him in order to claim such compensation. Article 29(n) 29(n) In the event of the total loss of an employee's tool box and its contents as a result of fire or theft while the box is located on Company property or while the employee is traveling and/or working on an authorized Field Assignment and stored in a Company designated area, the employee will assume the first $50 of replacement cost and the Company will provide up to the following amounts towards the balance of the replacement cost of the tool box: (1) $2,000 for the loss of a "Rollaway" tool box, (2) $600 for the loss of a "Tote Box/Kit Bag." This benefit only applies to the entire loss of a tool box and its contents. It does not cover loss of individual tools. Only 2

4 tools required by the established tool list for the employee's classification will be considered for replacement. Tools Lost The Grievant testified that after he was awarded the Inspector's position in June 1990, he chose to leave his tool box at his former place of assignment, the APU Unit, which is located approximately four and one-half miles from the area of his new assignment on the 727 line, saying that he felt he wouldn't last long as an Inspector. It appears also that Inspectors may, from time to time, be required to do certain mechanical work. As a general practice Mechanics assigned to a given specialty may have many more tools than are required in that specialty, because, as in the case of the Grievant, they have moved around to different specialties from time to time which require different tools. The Grievant did not audit the tool box when he left it. A note from Supervisor T. T. Vaughn, who was then assigned to the APU shop, indicated that he did, in fact, leave his rollaway and drawer top chest, the two components of his tool box, at the APU shop when he left in June The shop itself is designed to be a secure area, there being a security fence separating it from adjacent areas, with entry by combination on a keypad. At night when the shop is locked up there is also an infrared security system which is alerted at that time. union testimony confirmed that employees bidding into an Inspector's 3

5 job have left the tools of their trade in Company secured areas as did the Grievant. On Friday, September , contemplating return to work as a Mechanic on the following Monday, the Grievant went to retrieve his tools and found them missing. Shop Steward Roger Eckhardt testified that he was in the APU Shop at the time, and helped the Grievant to search for the tools throughout the entire building, to no avail. Eckhardt confirmed that the tool box had been stored in the tool box storage area in the APU. The Grievant testified that during his prior stints as Inspector he had left his tool box in the same APU area. In addition to searching the APU building, the Grievant also checked at AFW, where the Stock Clerk informed him that his tools had not been shipped there. The Grievant reported the theft on September On the following day Administrator of Bids, Qualification and System Transfers, Jerry Hayden, advised the Grievant by memorandum that he would be required to produce additional witnesses who could "more timely determine where and when they last saw your tool box and its contents," and that the Company would also need an itemized list and description of the tool boxes and the tools that were lost. It appears that the Grievant did not receive this notification until approximately October 19. He did not initially furnish an itemized list for the reason that he could not recall all of the tools that were in his box. 4

6 On October he received notice from Employee Relations that his claim would be denied, stating that thereafter he saw no purpose in submitting an itemized list. Administrator Hayden agreed that, following notification from Labor Relations, there would have been no point in the Grievant making out a tool list. Shop Steward Eckhardt testified that he had worked with the Grievant as a Mechanic, and that to his knowledge the Grievant had a full compliment of tools when they worked on engines together, Eckhardt stating that he often borrowed tools from the Grievant when he, himself, did not have the required item. The Union entered into evidence a list of tools required of Inspector personnel assigned to line/base inspection. The Grievant testified that he not only possessed all of those tools in his tool box at the time he was made Inspector in June 1990, but that, because of his various assignments in the past, he had many tools in addition to those listed and formally required of the position. It is agreed that the tool box itself consists of a ten drawer rollaway cabinet and a ten drawer top chest which fits onto the cabinet. Reimbursement Practice Article 29(n) was first included in the 1971 Agreement, and remained unchanged until 1989, when the maximum reimbursement 5

7 was raised from $800 to $2000 for the loss of a rollaway, and from $300 to $600 for the loss of a "tote box/kit bag." Administrator Hayden testified that the tools needed for various specialties are agreed upon between the Company and the Union, and that if the Company changes the list it is sent to the affected shop for 30 days, and if objections are raised further discussions are held before a final required list is published. According to Hayden, in some twenty years or so in his experience there have been approximately 30 claims for lost tool boxes, of which the Company has paid approximately 21. Of the 21 cases, Hayden stated that many Mechanics had more tools than were required on the appropriate list, but the Company did not pay for any tools in addition to those on the list. In the case of the Grievant, it was Hayden's testimony that he had not lost any tools required of the Inspector's classification, since he had taken all the tools required for that classification with him. He said it has also been the practice to require Mechanics claiming tool box loss to purchase new tools pursuant to the current requirements of their classification, to bring in the receipts, and then to be issued a check, less the $50 deductible. The Grievant told Hayden that he did not buy replacement tools for the reason that he had no money, in addition to not bringing in an itemized list of tools lost. Asked on cross-examination where in the Agreement, or in applicable regulations, it is required that an employee buy 6

8 tools and bring in the receipt, Hayden replied that it "had been the practice since year one." He said that in all 21 cases where reimbursement had been made, the affected Mechanic had brought in the list of tools purchased, perhaps on charge pending reimbursement, and that a check had then been issued for their cost. ARGUMENTS union In 1971 the Union contracted for compensation for loss of an entire tool box containing tools necessary for job performance. Loss was to be compensated according to an established tool chest for the area. This agreement was not changed until 1989 when the amount was increased, and a "kit bag" replacement was added. The only relevant Board of Adj ustment decision which the Union can discover is Case No. M DFW, involving a Mechanic's loss of a "tote bag" while working on an aircraft. The relevant observation in that decision is that "the tools which each mechanic deems essential to carry with him are left to his individual choice." In the present case the Grievant chose to take with him only a flashlight, a mirror, and a 10 power glass. His choice was to leave the remaining tools in a secure area in the APU Unit. Despite the Company's contention that the lost tools were not relevant to the job of Aircraft Inspector, the Company 7

9 has required an extensive list of tools for such Inspectors. The employee determines what tools are actually to be taken to the job, which the Grievant did, and he admittedly did not lose the tools with which he was then working as an Inspector. He did lose all the rest. There is no evidence that the Grievant did not leave his rollaway and top box in the APU unit as was his option. The APU unit is located behind a security fence, and is additionally protected by an infrared alarm system. The Union has presented evidence to indicate that the Grievant possessed in his tool box all of the tools listed as required for an Aircraft Inspector. It is true that the Grievant received a memorandum requesting him to list the tools in his box, on approximately october 19. Only 11 days later he was advised that the Company had determined that it was not liable for the loss, so that' there was no point in complying further with the request for an itemized list. The Union asks on behalf of the Grievant only that the tools listed for Inspectors on the July list be compensated for. It is agreed that the revised list of November does not apply. Nor does the Union ask that the Grievant be compensated for the many additional tools which were in his box and had been acquired over his many years of service as a Mechanic in many different areas. For these reasons the Union asks that the grievance be 8

10 granted and that the Grievant be compensated in full for his loss. Company contrary. to assertions by the Union, the Company has complied with the Agreement, and with the procedures required in the case of a lost tool claim, which the Grievant has not. Grievant is to present an itemized list and estimated value of tools lost, which was not done. Once such a 1ist 1 is presented, Employee Relations is required to compare that list with the requirements of the unit where the employee is assigned. That could not be done since the Grievant had not furnished a list. Even though he may not have received Administrator Hayden's Memorandum of October 9 until perhaps ten days later, he still had ample time to comply and present an itemized list before he was advised by Labor Relations that his request for compensation would be denied. When the Grievant left the APU unit to become an Aircraft Inspector on the 727 line he took with him what was needed, which was minimal, and left the rest of his tools at a distant location. He apparently visited that location only once, in approximately May of 1991, and then a year and one-half later discovered that the tool box and tools were missing. The Company would suggest that the Grievant had abandoned the tools needed for his livelihood and that he bears 9

11 responsibility for having done so. There was no loss of tools required in the work unit to which he was assigned. The Company would suggest that Case No. M DFW is not relevant,in that the employee in that dispute was using the tools in question, had set them down, and that they had been stolen while he was working with them and had them in his possession. For these reasons the Company asks that the grievance be denied in its entirety. ANALYSIS One contention of the Company seems to be that the Grievant was irresponsible for having left his tool box at the APU unit when he bid on as an Aircraft Inspector on the 727 line. The evidence, however, is to the contrary, indicating that not only the Grievant, but other employees bidding to an Inspector's job, have left their tool boxes in Company secured areas while serving as Inspectors. There is no dispute but that the area in which the Grievant left his tool box was a properly designated area. Even though it was off the Maintenance and Engineering Base, it was a Company facility located within a security fence, with an infrared security system within the building. There is no showing that the Grievant was irresponsible in leaving his tools in that situation. 10

12 The Company's own regulations require that an Aircraft Inspector maintain a stipulated list of tools. Testimony of the Grievant and the Shop Steward, given the Grievant's long service in numerous areas of the mechanical trade, is sufficient to indicate that the Grievant did possess in his tool box the requisite tool inventory. considering the Grievant's length of service we may also credit his testimony that, in addition, he possessed many tools not required of the Aircraft Inspector. Even so, the Union claims on his behalf nothing more than the tools listed on the applicable inventory, that of July We think that it would have been wise for the Grievant to have responded more rapidly to the request that he furnish an itemized list of what was in his tool box, but note at the same time the Company's admission that upon being advised that his claim would not be honored, there would have been no point in presenting a list thereafter. In regard to Case No. M DFW, the comment referred to, that "the tools which each Mechanic deems essential to carry with him are left to his individual choice" pertains to a situation entirely different from the situation presented in the present dispute, so that the case offers no helpful authority. In the present circumstances the Grievant has substantially complied with the requirements for establishing a 11

13 bona fide lost tool box claim, and the Agreement requires that he be reimbursed. WILLIAM EATON, Referee April AWARD 1. The Company is liable for the Grievant's tools and tool boxes pursuant to the provisions of Article 27(n) of the TWU Agreement. RICK GATT Company Member JIM HALE Union Member WILLIAM EATON Referee April