Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants

Supreme Court of the United States · 1989 · Labor Law

489 U.S. 426 (1989)

Updated August 1, 2026

Labor Lawcrossover employeesRailway Labor Actstriker reinstatementseniorityRLAmajor disputeself-help

Facts

TWA and the union bargained under the Railway Labor Act for a new contract, reached impasse, and the union struck. During the strike, TWA continued operations by using employees who did not strike or who returned before the strike ended, hiring new flight attendants, and announcing that vacancies created during the strike would be filled under the existing seniority bidding system for all working flight attendants and that those assignments would remain effective after the strike. When the union later made an unconditional offer to return to work on behalf of full-term strikers, TWA accepted but refused to displace junior crossover employees already working. Full-term strikers were instead reinstated as vacancies arose and retained the seniority they would have had absent the strike.

Issue

Whether, at the conclusion of a strike under the Railway Labor Act, an employer must displace junior crossover employees who worked during the strike in order to reinstate more senior full-term strikers. More specifically, the question was whether the RLA or relevant NLRA analogies make such a crossover nondisplacement policy unlawful.

Rule

The Railway Labor Act does not require an employer, after exhaustion of the Act's dispute-resolution procedures and during the period of lawful self-help, to displace junior crossover employees in order to reinstate more senior full-term strikers. Absent a contrary contractual provision or another federal-law prohibition, a carrier may apply existing seniority rules to all working employees and preserve strike-time assignments filled by crossovers, so long as reinstated strikers do not suffer a continuing loss of seniority of the kind condemned in Erie Resistor.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

SkyHarbor Regional Air and the union representing its gate agents bargained for a new agreement in Phoenix, exhausted the Railway Labor Act's mediation and cooling-off procedures, and then the union struck. During the strike, the carrier told agents who kept working or returned before the strike ended that assignments obtained under the existing bidding system would remain in place after the strike, and when the strike ended the carrier reinstated full-term strikers only as vacancies arose while preserving the seniority they would have had absent the strike.

If the most senior full-term strikers sue to force the carrier to displace junior crossover employees immediately, how should a court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that after the RLA's major-dispute procedures are exhausted, parties may use the full range of peaceful economic self-help unless some other federal-law obligation forbids it. A carrier therefore need not displace junior crossover employees to reinstate more senior full-term strikers where returning strikers are reinstated as vacancies arise and retain the seniority they would have had absent the strike. (Derived from Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants (1989).)