# Appendix — Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Laffey

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_0156%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1978
- **Citation:** 434 U.S. 1086

## Text

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Anited States “

OCTOBER TERM, 1977

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.,
Petitioner,

MARY P. LAFFEY, ef al.,
Respondents.

APPENDIX TO THE
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

a aes

. PHILIP A. LACOVARA

E GERALD GOLDMAN

: PETER M. KREINDLER

JAY KELLY WRIGHT
Hughes Hubbard & Reed
1660 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Attorneys for Petitioner

Wasteegion. 0.C. ¢ CLE PUBLISHERS © LAW PRINTING CO. e (702) 393-0575

: ; z
i. ~ > , us . i fee thine ay 2° m ‘ we Fie ad A wt i a
saben ie Oe Wee tee a eee Meee: ale eee fea ek PF)

pay * -

S . :
i >
a . #
.” “ + = - = * ’
i > . PS a - ¥ r ar ~~ rey Se tal a ee Soe = wits é a> o® *
‘ = +} = af as h . Z » + ~~ 7 : : : > pat _ 7 ~ fu
= a Oe eae Te Fe PR ene Oe a ee BS Ee Ee ee +)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX A:
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the
District Court, dated November 12, 1973

CE ose was ay he'd 0 use 60 608

APPENDIX B:
Memorandum and Order of the District Court.

dated April 3, 1974 (374 F. Supp. 1382) .......

APPENDIX C:
Opinion of Court of Appeals, dated October 20,

Peer rt ee

APPENDIX D:
Judgment of Court of Appeals, dated October

RPE TTT er eee Tee Tee eT Ieee

APPENDIX E:
Order of Court of Appeals Amending Opinion,

dated September 8, 1977 ...................

APPENDIX F:
Order of Court of Appeals Denying Rehearing,

dated September 8, 1977 ..........ccccccces

Page

ee

APPENDIX A

Gnited States District Court

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civ. A. No. 2111-70

MARY P. LAFFEY et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Vv.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The above-entitled matter came on for trial before the
undersigned Judge of the above Court commencing on
December 4, 1972, and continuing thereafter until January
10, 1973.

Michael H. Gottesman, Esquire and Dennis D. Clark,
Esquire of Bredhoff, Barr, Gottesman, Cohen & Peer ap-
peared for the Plaintiffs. Gilbert Feldman, Esquire of Klei-
man, Cornfield and Feldman, counsel for Air Line Stewards
and Stewardesses Association, International, Transport

2a

Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, appeared for a por-
tion of the trial on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Henry Halladay,
Esquire and David A. Ranheim, Esquire of Dorsey, Mar-
quart, Windhorst, West & Halladay, appeared for the De-
fendant, Donald J. Capuano, Esquire of O’Donoghue &
O’Donoghue appeared for Air Line Pilots Association, Inter-
national on the first day of trial, and on one other occasion at
the close of trial to indicate a potential desire to present
evidence; no further appearance was made and no evidence
was presented by Air Line Pilots Association, International.

Karl W. Heckman, Esquire of the United States Department —

of Labor appeared for portions of the trial; no evidence was
presented by the Department of Labor.

Based upon the oral testimony at trial, the designated
deposition testimony submitted to the Court, exhibits intro-
duced by both parties, and all of the files, records and pro-
ceedings herein, the Court duly advised in the premises, in
accordance with Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-
cedure, makes and enters its Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law and Order for Judgment as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The named Plaintiffs are [or were] female cabin
attendant employees of Northwest Airlines, Inc. [herein-
after “NWA” or “the Company”],.and this action has been
certified as a class action on behalf of all NWA female cabin

attendants employed at any time from July 2, 1965 to the
present.

2. The Defendant, NWA, is an air carrier which was
formed in 1926, and it currently maintains its corporate

headquarters and main base at the Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport in Minnesota.

3a

3. NWA first began passenger service between Minne-
apolis-St. Paul and Chicago, and from 1927 to 1946,
extended its routes to other cities in the continental United
States. Virtually all of NWA’s flights cross state lines, and it
is engaged in interstate commerce. In 1947 NWA began
scheduled service to the Orient, and since that date has
increased the number of its routes within and without the
continental limits of the United States. NWA has used
various types of equipment to fly these routes over the years,
including (1) propeller driven equipment [DC-4, Strato-
cruiser, DC-6, DC-7] accommodating between approxi-
mately 25 and 100 passengers with a cabin crew complement
of two or three, (2) jet equipment [DC-8, 727, 720B,
707-320] accommodating between approximately 100 and
150 passengers with a cabin crew complement of five, and
(3) the new wide-bodied jet equipment, including the 747
and the DC-10, carrying as many as 362 passengers with a
cabin crew complement of as many as sixteen.

4. NWA’s international operations are extremely com-
petitive, much more so than its domestic operations. There
is no significant market in NWA’s international system that
is not competitive with at least two or more international
carriers. Most of these carriers are significantly larger than
NWA and also have the competitive advantage of operating
around the world, thus being able to carry through-traffic
beyond the New York and Hong Kong termination points
of NWA’s system.

5. Inanormal year not subject to the impact of a strike,
NWA handles approximately seven million passengers pro-
ducing gross revenues of approximately $450 million. This
ranks NWA approximately seventh among the eleven trunk

4a

carriers in the United States. From 1968 through 1970,
NWA lead all United States air carriers in annual net profits,
earning between 44.5 and 51.5 million dollars per year. In
1971, NWA was second in net profits with nearly 21.5 mil-
lion dollars, the drop being attributed to the effects of a
labor strike in the latter part of 1970.

6. All cabin attendants employed by NWA between
1927 and 1947 were females classified as stewardesses. The
company has continued to employ females in the stewardess
classification up to and including the present time. In 1947,
the Company established a cabin attendant classification
purser. From 1947 through June 15, 1967, the Company
followed an express policy of confining the purser job solely
to males. In 1949, the Company established a cabin attend-
ant classification of flight service attendant (FSA), which
has always been filled exclusively by males. The FSA classi-
ification was established when the Company began utilizing
a plane called the Boeing Stratocruiser, which had a sunken
bar lounge. The Company decided that a male cabin attend-
ant should be assigned to the bartending function (as well as
other cabin attendant duties) on this plane. Except for the
cocktail service on this plane, FSAs were hired to perform
the same duties that female stewardesses performed.

7. On December 17, 1946, the National Mediation
Board certified Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Asso-
ciation, International (hereinafter “ALSSA”) as the duly
designated collective bargaining representative of NWA’s
female cabin attendants. This certification subsequently was
amended on October 22, 1948, to provide that ALSSA also
was the duly designated representative of NWA’s pursers,
and again on June 20, 1950, to provide the same represen-

Sa

tative for NWA’s male cabin attendants. On July 7, 1961,
ALSSA having affiliated with the Transport Workers Union
of America, AFL-CIO, the National Mediation Board certi-
fied “Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Association, Inter-
national, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO”
as the duly designated representative of all cabin attendant
and purser employees of NWA. In 1971 NWA’s cabin
attendants and pursers voted to replace ALSSA with Air
Line Pilots Association, International (hereinafter “ALPA”)
as their representative, and the National Mediation Board
so certified on September 17, 1971. ALPA has joined this
action as a “non-aligned party.”

8. At all times the membership of NWA’s cabin attend-
ant class or craft (including pursers) represented by ALSSA
or ALPA has been predominantly female, so that females
always have and still do possess a clear numerical superiority
over males in the affairs of the class or craft and the union
representative. The members are called upon to vote for
their representatives within the internal union structure, to
state their views and proposais in connection with collective
bargaining, to ratify new agreements, and otherwise to
participate in the process by which their rates of pay, rules
and working conditions are established.

9. Atall times from December 17, 1946 to date, NWA
has entered into collective bargaining negotiations and
agreements with the certified union representative, ALSSA
or ALPA, pursuant to the mandate of and the procedures
outlined in the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §151 et seq.
The agreements have covered all United States-based cabin
attendants and pursers, but not those based in the Orient
and assigned exclusively to flights within the Orient
[“interport” ].

6a

10. Since at least 1943, NWA has employed female
cabin attendants as “stewardesses.” In the first collective
bargaining agreement, dates September 19, 1947, a “stew-
ardess” was defined as:

... an employee who is respon .ble for the performing
or assisting in the performance of all enroute cabin
service, Or ground service, to delayed or canceled pas-
sengers, and shall include the responsibility for the
welfare, comfort, enjoyment and safety of the pas-
sengers, as prescribed by the Company regulations.

A salary was established for that position. The definition has
continued to the present, and the salary has increased over
time by union negotiation and agreement.

11. In 1947 when NWA obtained and began flying
routes to and through the Orient [see Finding 3], the purser
classification was established. In the first collective bargain-
ing agreement including pursers, dated January 1, 1949,
the position of “flight purser” was defined as follows:

“Flight Purser” means an employee on the inter-
national division whose work includes performing and
assisting in the performance of all enroute cabin serv-
ice, attending to passenger comfort, responsibility for
the preparation and completion of passenger, crew,
and cargo manifests and other reports and documents
as may be required by the Company or by law. A flight
purser may be designated to perform necessary duties in
connection with flight cargo operations, may be desig-
nated as being in charge of other cabin attendants, may
be required to accept special assignments related to
flight purser duties, and from time to time may be
requested to participate in publicity and promotional

assignments not in violation of any of the terms of this
Agreement.

7a

The definition of a “purser” has continued to the present
time. A salary was established for the purser position at a
rate higher than that for the stewardess position. The salary
for the position has increased over time pursuant to union
negotiation and agreement.

12. In 1949 NWA began hiring male cabin attendants
as “flight service attendants” [FSA’s] to fly particularly on
the Boeing Stratocruiser aircraft. They were to perform
essentially the same duties as female cabin attendants on
those and other flights. Effective with the 1951 collective
bargaining agreement, FSA’s were included in the definition
of “Stewardess” appearing in the earlier agreements, which
was carried forward thereafter.

13. Beginning with the 1951 collective bargaining
agreement and continuing thereafter to date, a combined
purser-FSA seniority list was created by virtue of which
FSAs began accruing seniority as pursers immediately upon
commencing their duties as FSAs.

14. From 1951 until the June 15, 1967 coiiective bar-
gaining agreement, FSAs had a contractual right to fill
purser vacancies in seniority order. From 1951 on, as per-
manent vacancies in the purser position arose, notices of
the purser vacancies were posted, addressed only to male
employees. At no time did the Company fail to award a
purser vacancy to the most senior FSA bidding for it. The
Company’s policy was that any FSA who had successfully
completed his FSA probationary period was thereby deemed
qualified for purser vacancies.

15. As temporary vacancies in purser positions arose,
FSAs were temporarily elevated to fill such vacancies and
received purser pay for doing so. When they were promoted

8a

to permanent purser positions, they received credit on the
purser pay scale for the time spent filling temporary purser
vacancies.

16. FSAs who choss to pass up promotional opportuni-
ties to purser and then later promoted to purser jumped
ahead for all seniority purposes, of junior employees who
had been promoted ahead of them.

17. The Company hired its last FSA in 1957 (the dis-
continued use of the Boeing Stratocruiser having eliminated
the Company’s interest in having FSAs). Between 1957 and
1964 all purser vacancies were filled by the promotion of
FSAs in the manner described above. By mid-1964, the
Company had exhausted the supply of FSAs who desired
elevation to purser positions. As subsequent purser vacan-
cies arose, the Company invoked its contractual right to
transfer “the most junior employee” to force the remaining
few FSAs who were based in Minneapolis to transfer to the
Seattle base and fill purser vacancies. By May 1965, there
remained only three FSAs, all voluntarily based in Honolulu
flying on military chartér flights for the United States Gov-
ernment, certain of which required the use of male cabin
attendants only.

18. As of May 1, 1965, just prior to the effective date
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Company
employed 48 male pursers, no female pursers, three male
FSAs, and 724 female stewardesses.

19. The last purser was hired by the Company on
April 25, 1970. As of that date, the Company employed 137
male cabin attendants, all as pursers, and 1,747 female
cabin attendants, all but one classified as stewardesses. (The
single female purser was Mary P. Laffey, who was promoted

9a

from the classification of stewardess effective October 4,
1967.

20. Between May 1, 1965, and May 1, 1970, the Com-
pany hired 118 new male cabin attendants, all of them as
pursers. During the same period, it hired 2,224 new female
cabin attendants, all of them as stewardesses.

21. Recently, NWA has hired several male cabin attend-
ants as “stewards” to perform the same duties as stew-
ardesses and FSA’s and at the same union negotiated and
agreed upon rate of pay. At all times from 1949 to the pres-
ent, FSA’s and stewards have been compensated at the same
rate as stewardesses of equal longevity. The single compen-
sation schedule provided by union contract for the cabin
attendant classification establishes periodic increments based
upon accumulated longevity in that classification. In addi-
tion to the basic compensation, cabin attendants engaged
in “foreign flying” [flights to or from foreign countries,
Alaska or Hawaii, excluding Winnipeg, Canada] have been
compensated either according to a separate schedule at a
higher rate or according to a specific hourly supplement.
Pursers receive no such supplement.

22. The Company and ALSSA engaged in collective
bargaining negotiations in 1963 and 1964, from which
eventuated the 1964 collective bargaining agreement. In
those negotiations, ALSSA sought a provision which would
permit stewardesses to progress to purser vacancies in se-
niority order after the last FSA who desired to become a
purser had done so. The Company refused to agree to this
proposal and it was not included in the 1964 agreement.

23. In 1966 and 1967, the Company and ALSSA

10a

engaged in the next round of collective bargaining negotia-
tions eventuating in the agreement which became effective
June 15, 1967. One of the Company’s opening proposals
was that a single “cabin attendant” classification be estab-
lished, in lieu of the three classifications of purser, FSA and
stewardess, and that the rate of pay for this single classifica-
tion be the rate then paid to stewardesses and FSA’s. The
Union opposed this proposal, and it was not adopted. One
of ALSSA’s proposals was that stewardesses be permitted to
progress to the position of purser in seniority order, as FSA’s
had in the past. The Company refused to accept ALSSA’s
proposal, but stated that it would agree to a provision per-
mitting stewardesses to bid for purser vacancies if the Com-
pany was allowed a right of “selectivity.” ALSSA acceded
to the Company’s proposal because it was convinced that it
was the most it could achieve. The provision as it appeared
in the 1967 agreement provided:

“d. Employees will be notified by posting on the
bulletin board of any vacancies occurring within the
purser classification. Stewardesses and flight service
attendants will be given consideration if they make
written application for any such positions. In consider-
ing the applications the Company will give considera-
tion, among others, to the employee’s past service
record, length of service, leadership ability, and test
results.” P-79, Sec. 9(d)).

This provision replaced the following clause which had

appeared in the 1964 agreement, as well as the preceding
agreements:

“d. Flight service attendants will be given an op-
portunity to qualify as a flight purser at any time the
Company desires provided that all promotions to the

.

re ene ey
- _

ane 4 ow oe

ee ase.

Status of flight purser shall be in the order of their
seniority subject to the provisions of this section.”

24. The opportunity for stewardesses to seek purser
vacancies under the 1967 agreement differed from the
manner in which FSAs previously filled such vacancies in
the following additional respects:

(a) The 1967 agreement contained a review pro-
cedure for stewardesses whose bids for purser vacancies
were denied, but that procedure was available only to
stewardesses who had “at least four (4) years of service
with the Company on flights to which a purser has been
assigned.” The Company insisted on this limitation to
discourage bids for purser vacancies by stewardesses who
did not have four years’ flying with a purser. A majority
of the Company’s male pursers became pursers without
having flown for four years on flights with a purser.

(b) Whereas the probationary period in the 1964
agreement and in the agreements prior thereto had been
“the first four (4) months of service as a flight purser,”
the provision was changed in the 1967 agreement, at the
Company’s insistence, to “the first six (6) months of serv-
ice as a flight purser.”

(c) The 1967 agreement left intact the combined
FSA-purser seniority list. The effect of this was that
stewardesses becoming pursers would go to the bottom
of the purser seniority list, whereas both before and after
1967 FSAs who became pursers received credit for their
years of FSA service on the purser seniority list. Seniority
on the purser seniority list determines the order of bidding
for schedules, vacation preference, the order in which

12a

pursers are laid off and recalled during reductions in force
and restorations in force, and priority in obtaining volun-
tary transfers to other bases. Additionally, those at the
bottom of the purser seniority list are subject to involun-
tary transfers from one base to another. The mos, junior
employees on the purser seniority list usually wind up with
“reserve” schedules. Reserve schedules are generally con-
sidered the least desirable, as the employee has no choice
of itinerary and must remain available at his telephone
for most of the month to be summoned on short notice.

(d) Although FSAs who had completed their proba-
tionary period were deemed qualified for purser vacancies
under the pre-1967 agreements, no similar policy was
applied with respect to stewardesses bidding under the
1967 agreement.

(e) Following the signing of the 1967 agreement, the
Company decided to “upgrade” its standards for selecting
pursers, and to place greater emphasis on the qualities of
supervisory capacity and leadership ability than it had in
the past. As part of this greater emphasis on supervisory
capacity, the Company decided to begin utilizing tests
which had not previously been utilized in the selection of
pursers. None of the tests administered to applicants for
any cabin attendant positions prior to 1967 had been
utilized by the Company to measure supervisory potential
or supervisory capacity. When FSAs progressed to purser
prior to 1967, they took no tests as a prerequisite to be-
coming a purser; following the signing of the 1967 agree-
ment, however, stewardesses seeking purser positions
were subjected to tests.

25. Stewardesses have been deterred from bidding for
purser vacancies since 1967 because:

fy

13a

(a) Under the terms of the agreement they would go
to the bottom of the purser seniority list, have last choice
in selecting schedules, have to fly reserve, have last choice
in selecting vacation time, be the first laid off in a reduc-
tion in force, and be subject to involuntary transfers to
other bases.

(b) If they are senior, under the terms of the agree-
ment they would not receive any greater pay for a sub-
stantial period of time than they would receive by remain-
ing a stewardess.

26. Following the signing of the 1967 agreement, the
NWA personnel office was instructed to consider steward-
esses for purser vacancies. It was not told to consider female
applicants other than stewardesses and it never did. Despite
a lack of well qualified applicants for the purser position, the
Company did not canvass the stewardess ranks, nor consider
applications from females who were applying for stewardess
positions. Rather, the Company resorted to advertising and
lowering of standards to recruit pursers from outside.

27. When the Company anticipated purser vacancies,
its practice was to hire men off the street, put them through
its five-week cabin attendant training program, and then
post notices of purser vacancies. These men were “assured
of a job.” If the Company awarded a purser vacancy to a
stewardess who bid for it, the result would be that the Com-
pany had a purser excess, and as future needs arose, no
vacancies would have to be posted.

28. Late in the Summer of 1967, without posting
notices of the existence of any purser vacancies, the Com-
pany hired five male applicants as pursers and entered them

14a

into its training program. These males were hired to fill
purser vacancies in October 1967. Laffey learned of the
hiring of the men and complained to Homer Kinney, the
Company’s Director of Labor Relations, that the hiring of
these men without posting notices of the purser vacancies
violated the 1967 agreement. Kinney acknowledged that
Laffey was correct, and a notice was posted on October 20
advising that five purser vacancies at the Seattle base were
available for bid, to be filled on or about November 10,
1967. Meanwhile, the five males had completed their train-

ing and were assigned to purser positions on October 4,
1967.

29. Two stewardesses bid for these vacancies; Laffey,
who had nine years seniority as a stewardess, and Shirley
Linburgh, who had 15 years seniority. Linburgh’s bid was
received a few hours past the bid deadline, and she was
advised that consequently her bid would not be considered,
despite the fact that five vacancies were posted and only two
cabin attendants bid for such vacancies.

30. Although the vacancy for which Laffey bid was to
be filled on approximately November 10, 1967, that date
passed without Laffey learning anything in response to her
bid. She inquired of R. R. McPherren, her supervisor.
McPherren wrote to Kinney on November 21, inquiring
about the delay in processing Laffey’s bid; Kinney responded
that the delay was because the Company was obtaining new
tests to be administered to purser applicants. While Laffey
was waiting, the Company hired two inore men as pursers,
without giving them the tests which (because not yet devel-
oped) were the stated reason for making Laffey wait. (Nor

were the five male pursers hired in October, 1967, given
these tests).

en

1Sa

31. Laffey received no response to her bid until April
1968, despite repeated demands by her that the bid be acted
upon. This was an unusually long delay for filling a posted
purser vacancy. On or about April 10, 1968, Laffey phoned
Kinney to remind him that it was now nearly 5 months since
the vacancy had been scheduled to be filled. Not until after
this inquiry did the Company begin to seek new tests to be
administered to purser applicants. Kinney instructed Virgil
Fencl, the Company’s Director of Employment, to obtain
such a test. Fencl then contacted Doctor Lowell Hellervik, a
testing specialist who provided regular consulting services
to the Company, and requested a short test which could be
used to identify supervisory potential in purser candidates.
Shortly thereafter, Hellervik recommended to Fencl that the
Company use a test called the “Self-Description Inventory,”
and submitted the test to Fencl on April 17, 1968. In May,
Laffey was finally tested and interviewed. In June, she was
sotified that her bid for the purser vacancy was granted.
She became the first and only female purser in NWA.

32. The Company initially advised Laffey that her
seniority date on the purser seniority list would be the date
of her actual assignment to the purser job in June, 1968.
Laffey protested that this would place her below the male
pursers who had been hired in October 1967, without the
posting of notices as required by the 1967 agreement, as
well as below the male pursers who had been hired in De-
cember 1967 while her bid was pending. Finally, the Com-
pany assigned her a purser seniority date of October 4, 1967.

33. For pay purposes, the Company placed Laffey on
the bottom step of the purser salary scale, and began paying
her a smaller salary than she had received as a senior stew-

16a

ardess. Laffey filed a grievance protesting that this violated
Section 3(i) of the 1967 agreement, which provided: “No
reduction in pay shall be suffered by an employee by virtue
of his accepting a purser assignment.” The Company ulti-
mately acquiesced and raised Laffey’s salary to that which
she had been receiving as a stewardess. Thereafter, the Com-
pany treated Laffey as moving one step up the purser scale
for each six months she served as a purser. It was not until
Laffey reached the fifth step of the purser salary scale that
she began to receive a higher salary than she had received as
a stewardess; until that point, she continued to receive her
stewardess salary pursuant to the “no reduction in pay”
provision.

34. Because Laffey was not siven credit for her years as
a stewardess when she was placed on the purser seniority list,
she occupied a relatively junior position on that list, and was
forced to bid the least desirable schedules, frequently having
to fly as a reserve purser.

35. In July, 1970, the Brotherhood of Airline Clerks
(BRAC), which represents certain of the ground personnel
employed by the Company, struck. The strike lasted until
mid-December, 1970. The Company fiew only a portion of
its flights during the strike. At the conclusion of the strike,
the Company decided to remove pursers from certain flights
on which it had previously used them. As a result, a number
of pursers were demoted to FSAs, and Laffey was demoted
to stewardess. As purser vacancies have arisen since Decem-
ber, 1970, they have been filled by the demoted pursers in
the order of their purser seniority. Because reductions in
force are governed by purser seniority, Laffey was one of
those who lacked sufficient seniority to remain as a purser.

a Ce

17a

From that date until the present, she has been reduced to her
former status as a stewardess and has been paid as such,
while men hired in 1965 and 1966 have continued to fly as
pursers. Had she been assigned a purser seniority date which
included her seniority as a stewardess (in the same manner
that FSAs who progressed to purser had their seniority as an
FSA included in their years of service as a purser), she would
have had sufficient seniority to remain as a purser at the time
of the reduction in force and at all times thereafter to the
present date.

36. Other stewardesses who submitted bids for purser
vacancies were refused.

(a) In late 1967, Alice Bernhard, a stewardess with
8% years of seniority, submitted a timely bid for a purser
vacancy to be filled in late December. Bernhard received
a letter from McPherren advising that her “qualifications
at this time are not sufficient” to be a purser. No tests were
administered to Bernhard, nor was she interviewed, prior
to the Company's rejection of her bid. She did not file a
grievance concerning the denial of the bid.

(b) In October, 1969, stewardess Carolyn A. Blair
(now Carolyn Ingold) submitted a timely bid for a purser
vacancy. On November 5, 1969, McPherren wrote to
Blair that her bid was rejected because her qualifications
were insufficient to be a purser. The Company neither
interviewed nor tested Blair prior to the sending of this
letter. Blair’s pre-employment interviews and tests, and
her cabin attendant evaluations, reflected that she was
mature, unusually intelligent, and a dedicated cabin

attendant. She did not file a grievance concerning the
denial of the bid.

18a

(c) In April, 1969, Janice P. Smith, a stewardess
with five years’ seniority, went to the Company’s Cabin
Service Office in Seattle, filled out an application for em-
ployment as a purser, addressed it to the Company's
general headquarters in Minneapolis, and left it for de-
livery in the intra-company mail. She received no re-
sponse to her application. In late 1969, Smith went to the
Seattle office and asked McPherren what was happening
with respect to her application. McPherren responded that
he was not aware that she had made an application. Smith
replied that she had, and asked if she could fill out another
application in McPherren’s presence, or file a letter of
preference. McPherren replied that she could not, and
that she would have to wait until a notice of purser va-
cancy was posted and bid at that time. Smith said that she
would rather leave an application, as she had not seer
notices in the past, and feared that she would miss them
and thus not be able to bid when purser vacancies arose.
McPherren told her that those not employed with the
Company, or employed in non-cabin-attendant positions,
could seek purser positions through such applications but
that stewardesses had to wait until a posted vacancy
appeared.

(d) On March 21, 1970, stewardess Beverly Emge
submitted a timely bid for a purser vacancy at the Wash-

ington base. No other bids were submitted for the vacan-

cy, and Emge was invited to Minneapolis (she was based
in Washington, D.C.) to be interviewed on April 17,
1970, by James Robertson, the Company’s Director of
In-Flight Services. Robertson told Emge that if she took
the vacancy she would be the junior purser and thus would
have no choice in her bidding assignments, that she would

i a

~ rr A eee ee

PEs anh | te ee re ne

19a

suffer a cut in pay, and that, as the junior purser, she
would be subject to being involuntarily transferred to
other bases. He told her that the Company was contem-
plating a reduction in the size of its Washington base, and
an expansion of its Honolulu base, so that Emge would
run a serious risk of being transferred to Honolulu if she
accepted the bid. Emge did not wish to leave the Wash-
ington, D. C. area. Based upon Robertson’s representa-
tions that her acceptance of the purser vacancy rnight re-
sult in her involuntary transfer to Honolulu, she was
doubtful whether to take it. Robertson told her that she
had to decide immediately, as there was a male cabin
attendant at another base who was anxious for the va-
cancy. Emge said she would withdraw her bid, and Rob-
ertson had her sign a letter, which was already prepared
and typed, withdrawing her bid.

1. Three days later, the Company posted a notice
announcing yet another purser vacancy at the Wash-
ington base, to be filled on or about May 2, 1970. Upon
seeing this posting, Emge had a change of mind and
accordingly, on April 23, 1970, submitted a bid for
this new purser vacancy at the Dulles base.

2. The notice had stated that bids had to be sub-
mitted no later than noon Pacific Daylight Time on
May 1, 1970. By the close of business on April 30,
Emge’s was the only bid for this vacancy. Early in the
morning of May 1, 1970, at or prior to 7 a.m. Hono-
lulu time, Chalmers Hunter, a purser based in Hono-
lulu, phoned In-Flight Supervisor Jack Gulett, who
was staying at a Honolulu hotel, and indicated a desire
to transfer to Washington, D.C. Gulett advised Hunter
that there was a vacancy for which bids had to be sub-

20a

mitted that very day. Hunter said that there was no way
he could transmit a bid so that it would be received by
the Company in Seattle by the 12 noon deadline (12
noon Seattle time is 9 a.m. Honolulu time). Gulett said
that he would try to utilize the Company’s teletype
equipment for that purpose. Gulett phoned the Com-
pany’s crew scheduling office in Honolulu and instruct-
ed an employee “to get the bid on the machine immedi-
ately.” The teletype operator types the time of trans-
mission on the message. Gulett told him that the bid
“had to be dated before noon Pacific time to be valid.”
According to the Company’s records, the bid was re-
ceived in Seattle at 11:53 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time.
Later that day, the Honclulu office received a reply
teletype from Seattle announcing that Hunter was the
successful bidder for the vacancy.

3. Emge’s seniority date is September 29, 1961.
Hunter’s seniority date is November 16, 1969. On the
ground that she had greater seniority, Emge filed a
grievance protesting the award of the purser vacancy
to Hunter. The Company, thru Robertson, construed
the 1967 and subsequent agreements as according jun-
ior pursers priority over senior stewardesses if both bid
for the same purser vacancy and accordingly, denied
the bid.

37. From the time the purser classification was estab-

os ta. OP pipe le ee ea ll
. ‘

(Plaintiff, Laffey) and during same period hiring 2,244
new female cabin attendants. As of April 25, 1970, NWA
employed 137 male cabin attendants, all as pursers, and
1,747 female cabin attendants, all but one as stewardesses.

lished in 1947 until June 15, 1967, NWA exclusively hired
males for the purser position. The Company desired to con-
fine the purser position to males for the following reasons:

(a) A belief that males could more adequately per-

form the supervision and conducting job of the purser. 2) Top Company personnel were explicit and candid

22a

in expressing personal and Company preference tor male
pursers and discouraging stewardesses who applied.

3) Inordinate and unusual delay in processing the
bid of Plaintiff, Laffey, the only female applicant to sur-
vive an immediate or perfunctory rejection.

4) Disqualification of stewardesses without interview
or tests and despite their experience as cabin attendants.

5) Posting notices of pursers vacancies addressed
expressly to male employees (“to all purser and FSA’s”).

6) Failing to consider stewardess applicants for purs-
er positions no matter how well qualified.

7) Hiring and training new pursers in anticipation of
purser vacancies, then posting notice of vacancies and
thus assuring jobs to new pursers rather than awarding
vacancies to possible applicants from the stewardess ranks.

39. Qualifications and requirements for female cabin

attendants have differed from male cabin attendants as
follows:

1) Female cabin attendants, when hired, sign a form
stating: “I understand that among the qualifications and
requirements of a stewardesses’ position are . . . weight
in proportion to height, that failure to maintain such qual-
ifications . . . will be cause for termination of my employ-
ment.” Male cabin attendants are not required to sign
such a form when hired. When hired, female cabin atten-
dants are given a specific weight at which they must
report for training; if they arrive at training more than
one pound over this prescribed weight, they may be dis-
missed from class. No such requirement is imposed upon
male cabin attendants hired.

23a

2) The Company’s Cabin Service Manual contains
a table of prescribed weights to which female cabin
attendants must adhere. Prior to the trial in this case no
such weight chart existed for male cabin attendants. All
female cabin attendants are weighed on a regular basis
at least two times per year, and are also weighed when-
ever they appear overweight. No such periodic weighing
of male cabin attendants takes place.

3) Female cabin attendants who exceed the weight
prescribed in the cabin service manual by more than five
pounds are advised that they will be grounded and ulti-
mately terminated, unless they return to their prescribed
weight within a specific period of time, if they do not
return to their prescribed weight they are grounded (i.e.
suspended from employment and not permitted to fly)
until they have returned to their prescribed weight. Sub-
stantial numbers of female cabin attendants have been
grounded for exceeding their prescribed weight, and in
some instances even terminated.

4) The Company does not regularly monitor the
weight of its male cabin attendants, and they have con-
tinued to fly even if substantially overweight, without
being ordered to lose weight, without being placed on
weight check, and without being threatened with ground-
ing or termination. Only rarely have overweight male
cabin attendants been placed on weight check (since the
effective date of the Civil Rights Act, only three male
cabin attendants have been placed on weight check, and
of these, two were placed on weight check after the filing
of this lawsuit); and only one maie cabin attendant has
been grounded, for a period of one week, for failure to

24a

maintain an appropriate weight. In each of these rare
instances the male attendants involved were very sub-
stantially overweight, and were permitted to continue fly-
ing even though they did not reduce their weight anywhere
near that suggested (or even gained additional weight).

5) The Company has always required female cabin
attendants to share hotel rooms on lay-overs away from
their home base.

6) Since at least 1964, male cabin attendants have
been provided with single rooms on lay-overs. This has
been so, for the most part, even where two or more male
cabin attendants have been on the same flight. In April
1971, the Company issued a bulletin purporting to remind
male cabin attendants “of a Company policy which has
existed for many years that when there are two male cabin
attendants on a crew, they will share a room at lay-over
points.” However, the Company rarely, if ever, enforced
such a policy, in that even when two male cabin atten-
dants were on the same flight, they obtained single rooms
which the Company paid for without objection to the male
cabin attendants. On most interport flights (flights beyond
Tokyo) there is one male American purser and one male
' Asian flight service attendant, but they have not been
required at any time to share rooms.

7) The Company maintains a rule forbidding all fe-
male cabin attendants from wearing eyeglasses, but does
not maintain such a rule with respect to male cabin atten-
dants hired prior to September, 1971.

8) Female cabin attendants are subject to discipline,
including possible discharge, for violating the Company’s
rule forbidding them to wear eyeglasses.

CR te tn ee here ne Je Slide Dalle Sei linet tell Mine Os Pw oe oe

.
a
,.

25a

9) Female cabin attendants are permitted only to
wear contact lenses, which are substantially more expen-
sive than eyeglasses with lenses of comparable quality.

10) At all times, female cabin attendants wishing to
carry luggage aboard the plane have been required to

purchase luggage strictly prescribed as to brand, size and
color.

11) At no time have male cabin attendants been
restricted in their choice of luggage, other than that it be
“in good condition.”

12) The 1970 collective bargaining agreement pro-
vided that male cabin attendants (pursers and FSAs)
were to receive a uniform cleaning allowance of $13.00

per calendar quarter. Female cabin attendants did not
receive this allowance.

13) Prior to June 21, 1972, the Cabin Service Man-
ual provided that the “chain of command” aboard the
aircraft, after the cockpit crew, was ‘purser, then other
male cabin attendant if one assigned, and then steward-
esses in seniority order. On June 21, 1972, the Manual
was changed to provide an order of purser, and then
stewardesses or flight service attendants in seniority order.

14) Prior to September 1, 1971, the Company did
not hire females as cabin attendants if they were taller
than 5’9”. The maximum height for females was raised to
60” on September 1, 1971. The maximum height for
male cabin attendants was 6'0” at the time when the maxi-
mum for females was 5’9”.

15) From the beginnirz of its operation until June
15, 1967, the Company followed a policy of terminating

26a

all female cabin attendants when they married. It never
had such a rule with respect to male cabin attendants.
Despite a series of EEOC findings of probable cause, be-
ginning in December, 1965, that this policy violated Title
VII, the Company resisted changing its marriage rule
until the conclusion of collective bargaining negotiations
resulting in the June 15, 1967 agreement. At that time it
agreed to abandon the policy, and to reinstate only those
stewardesses terminated since the effective date of Title
VII, and then only if they applied for reinstatement within
three weeks of the ratification of the agreement and if
they waived all claims to back pay.

16) From the beginning of its operations until 1971,
the Company had a policy forbidding the hiring of mar-
ried females as cabin attendants. It has never had such a
rule with respect to hiring male cabin attendants. Despite
an EEOC finding of probable cause, in June 1969, that
this policy violated Title VII (and despite earlier EEOC
findings of probable cause concerning the policy of termi-
nating female cabin attendants when they married), the
Company persisted in following this non-hire policy until
February, 1971, when it entered into a conciliation agree-
ment with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights
to abandon the policy.

17) From 1956 until the June 15, 1967 agreement,
the Company had a rule forbidding female cabin atten-
dants from flying following their 32nd birthday. It never
had such a rule with respect to male cabin attendants. In
September 1968, the EEOC, in response to a charge filed
in August, 1966, found probable cause to believe that the
age 32 policy was a violation of Title VII. Between late

27a

March, 1970, and mid-June, 1970, at least 32 steward-
esses filed charges with the EEOC alleging that the Com-
pany was discriminating on the basis of sex in its treat-
ment of female cabin attendants. On July 14, 1970, the
EEOC sent “Notice of Right to Sue” to at least six of these

charging parties, all of whom are named plaintiffs in this
action.

40. The diverse types of flight itineraries which the

Company operates, or has operated in the past, are described
below:

(a) Pure domestic commercial flights are those reg-
ularly scheduled commercial flights which both begin and

end in the United States, and do not continue on to the
Orient.

(b) Domestic segments of international commercial
flights. Since 1959, most of the Company's transpacific
flights have originated in one U.S. city (generally on the
East Coast), fly to the West Coast of the United States,
and then to on to the Orient. Such flights return from the
Orient to the West Coast, and then go on to the East
Coast. Those portions of such flights which both begin
and end in the United States are referred to as “domestic
segments of international flights” or “domestic segments.”

(c) Transpacific commercial flights. The Company
has flown regularly scheduled transpacific commercial
flights between Anchorage and Tokyo since 1947, be-
tween Seattle and Tokyo since the early 1950s, and be-
tween Honolulu and Tokyo since August, 1969.

(d) Commercial interport flights ace those regularly
scheduled flights between Tokyo and the other Asian

28a

cities serviced by the Company (presently Osaka, Oki-
nawa, Seoul, Taipei, Manila and Hong Kong).

(e) Military Air Charter (MAC) flights. For many
years the Company has contracted with the U. S. Govern-
ment to provide regularly scheduled military air charter
flights between various cities and/or military bases. Such
service has included pure domestic, domestic segment,
transpacific, and interport flights. In addition from 1963
through June 1970 the Company provided MAC flights
between Hawaii and several military bases in the Coral
Islands in the Pacific.

(f) Commercial charter flights. In addition to its reg-
ularly scheduled flights, the Company frequently enters
into agreements to provide commercial charter flights.
Such service has included pure domestic, domestic seg-
ment, transpacific, and interport flights.

41. The diverse flight itineraries described above have
been manned by cabin attendants in various manners. Some
of the Company's flights are scheduled to be flown exclu-
sively by stewardesses and FSAs. Some are scheduled to be
flown by one purser and the rest stewardesses and FSAs.
Some have been scheduled to be flown by more than one
purser. Purser utilization on these various types of flights is
described below:

(a) In general, pure domestic commercial flights
have always been scheduled to be flown exclusively by
stewardesses and FSAs. The major exceptions where
pursers have been used are listed below:

(1) Between 1949 and 1954, the Company regu-
larly scheduled a purser on each of its flights between

29a

Seattle and Honolulu, and in recent years pursers in-
termittently have been scheduled on such flights; also,
throughout 1970 pursers were regularly scheduled on

certain pure domestic flights between Seattle and
Honolulu.

(2) Throughout 1970, in an effort to enhance its
service and competitive position the Company regu-
larly scheduled a purser on its flights from Honolulu
to Chicago and New York and return.

(3) At various times, in order to “position” purs-
ers Or to have pursers work while “dead heading,” the
Company regularly has scheduled purse:rs on some or
all of its flights between Seattle and Anchorage.

(4) In emergency situations in which there is a
shortage of available cabin attendants, due to illness,
strikes, special holiday or weekend plans, or other fac-
tors, the Company has utilized reserve pursers, pursers
on “time available,” and pursers volunteering for over-
time assignments on pure domestic flights which norm-
ally do not utilize pursers.

(b) From 1959 through 1970, the Company regu-
larly scheduled one purser to each domestic segment of an
international flight. The itineraries flown by pursers on
domestic segments, and the periods during which pursers

were regularly scheduled on such itineraries, were as
follows:

(1) June, 1959-July, 1970: from Anchorage to
either New York or Washington, D.C. (with intermedi-
ate stops) and return.

30a

(2) 1960-December, 1970: Seattle to New York
(with intermediate stops), and return.

(3) Approximately 1968 or 1969-mid 1970:
Seattle to Philadelphia (with intermediate stops), and
return.

(4) August 1, 1969-December, 1970: San Fran-
cisco and Los Angeles to Honolulu and return.

(c) One purser normally has been scheduled at all
times to fly on each transpacific commercial flight.

(d) From 1947 to 1952, the Company’s interport
flights were manned with one American purser, as well as
one American stewardess. From 1952 to 1957 no Ameri-
can cabin attendants flew on interport flights; they were
manned exclusively by Asian cabin attendants based in
Tokyo. Since 1957, one American purser normally has
been scheduled on each interport flight, with the rest of
the crew consisting of Asian cabin attendants.

(e) The Company always has scheduled at least one
purser on each MAC flight, whether it be pure domestic,
a domestic segment, transpacific or interport. Purser utili-
zation on the Coral Island MAC flights (and the pure
domestic MAC flights between Hawaii and California) is
described in (f) below.

(f) From the inception of the Coral Island MAC
flights (and the pure domestic MAC flights between
Hawaii and California) in 1963 until October, 1969, at
least one, and often two pursers were assigned to each
flight. From October, 1969 until June, 1970 (when the
Company lost its contract for such flights), the entire 3
to 5 member cabin attendant crews on such flights con-

3la

sisted solely of pursers. From 1963 until June 1970, a
small group of pursers and FSA’s were based in Honolulu
to fly the Coral Islands military flights. In addition, for
reasons of both economics and experience, these individu-
als were used to fly on the military charter flights between
Hawaii and California. The very small size of the Hono-
lulu base presented special scheduling problems, even on
a regular basis but particularly in emergency situations,
and thus more than one purser may have worked on given
flights. This was especially true from October 1969 until
June 1970, as a result of the fact that all FSA’s at the
Honolulu base were upgraded to purser for reasons of
economics, expedience and relations with NWA’s mili-
tary contract customers. However, paying more than one
individual as a purser, pursuant to its established policy
[see Finding 34], still was less costly than increasing the
number of cabin attendants based at Honolulu with re-
sulting underutilization of their time and the payment of
special monthly station allowances.

(g) A purser normally has been scheduled on all
transpacific and interport commercial charter flights, on
all domestic segments of international charter flisjuts (un-
til December, 1970), and, occasionally, on pure domestic
charter flights. NWA does so only if it receives a specific
request from the charter group for a purser or supervisory
individual, or on those special occasions when (1) pursers
are the only ones available to take the flights, or (2) the
positioning of pursers for other flights makes it both
economic and expedient to have them fly the domestic
charters.

42. The Company mans its international flights such

32a

that a particular cabin attendant crew (including the purser
if one is aboard) flies only one segment of a flight. Thus, one
crew will fly the domestic segment, another the transpacific
leg, and a third the interport portion. NWA has maintained
cabin attendant bases at the following cities during the des-
ignated periods: Seattle (at least 1947 to date); Minneapolis-
St. Paul (at least 1947 to date); Honolulu (1963 to Septem-
ber, 1971); and Washington, D.C. (approximately 1960 to
September, 1971). Pursers have been (or were) based in
Seattle from 1947 to date, in Minneapolis-St.Paul from
1947 to 1962, in Washington, D.C. from June 1969 to July,
1970, and in Honolulu from 1963 to September, 1971.
Stewardesses have been (or were) based in Seattle and
Minneapolis-St. Paul from at least 1947 to date, and in
Washington, D.C. during the entire period that base was
open. NWA also maintains cabin attendants bases in the
Orient, at which are assigned all of the Asian cabin attend-
ants who fly on the interport flights.

43. Each month, the Company constructs cabin attend-
ant schedules, representing the itincrary to be flown by a
cabin attendant during that month. Separate schedules are
constructed for each cabin attendant base. At each base,
separate schedules are constructed for pursers and for non-
pursers (i.e., stewardesses and FSAs). The employees in
each classification bid for schedules at their base in order of
their seniority. Generally, purser schedules are (or have
becn) constructed such that all of an individual’s flights in
a given month will be of the same type, i.e., all MAC, all
domestic segments, all pure domestic, all transpacific, or all
interport (plus transpacific).

44. The Company sought and obtained a provision in

33a

the 1967 collective bargaining agreement, entitling it to
assign “foreign national” (Asian) stewardesses to the Seattle
base irrespective of seniority, and to assign one foreign na-
tional stewardess to each transpacific flight irrespective of
seniority. (The 1970 agreement changed the phrase “foreign
national stewardess” to “stewardess proficient in the Japa-
nese, Korean or Chinese language.”) The Company desired
to have foreign nationals on its transpacific flights: (a) to
have a foreign language proficiency on the flight, (b) to
improve the Company’s relations with the Asian Govern-
ments with which it has to deal, and (c) to attract Asian
passengers. Separate monthly flights schedules are con-
structed for foreign national stewardesses, designed to place
one foreign national on each transpacific flight. Foreign
nationals are permitted to bid and fly only on these separate
schedules. Foreign national stewardesses, who are covered
by the collective bargaining agreement, receive the same
salaries as other stewardesses of equal seniority, despite their
language proficiency and the restricted schedules which they
are permitted to bid.

45. The Company and ALSSA engaged in negotiations
in 1969 and 1970 which culminated in the March 1, 1970,
collective bargaining agreement. In these negotiations,
ALSSA proposed that stewardesses be allowed to progress
to purser vacancies in seniority order; that stewardesses who
become pursers be credited with their full cabin attendant
seniority; and that stewardesses who become pursers be
slotted into the purser pay scale on the basis of their total
cabin attendant seniority. The Company refused to agree to
any of ALSSA’s proposals. Its chief negotiator stated that
the Company “prefers males and intends to have them” and
that the Company “wants men because of their leadership

34a

ability.” The highest ranking female employed by the Com-
pany in any capacity is a reservations supervisor. There are
200 to 300 men employed at levels above this highest rank-
ing female.

46. On most of the Company’s commercial flights, serv-
ice is offered in two categories: first class and tourist class.
The first class and tourist class capacities of the various
planes presently used by the Company are as follows:

Class Class. Total
Plane Passengers Passengers Passengers

727-100 24 69 93
727-200 26 96 122
720B 16 93 109
707-320B 22 118 140
707-320C 22 120 142
747 58 304 362

47. The essential differences in service provided to the
passengers in first class and tourist class are as follows:

(a) The seats and the aisles in the first class section
are larger.

(b) A better quality of food service, served some-
what more elaborately, is provided in the first class sec-
tion. |

(c) Liquor normally is served free in the first class
section, while passengers in the tourist section must pur-
chase liquor.

(d) The number of passengers per cabin attendant is
higher in the tourist section then in the first class section.

48. FAA regulations require that the various planes

35a

used by the Company carry at least the following number
of cabin attendants irrespective of passenger loads:

727-100 2
747 8
Allothers 3

The Company’s present policy is to schedule each flight with
the minimum of cabin attendants permitted, and to add addi-
tional attendants only if there are exceptionally heavy pas-
senger loads. However, at least one additional cabin attend-
ant is always scheduled on interport flights, so that there are
more cabin attendants on such flights than on other flights
with the same passenger load. The same number of cabin
attendants (pursers, stewardesses and FSAs) is assigned to
particular aircraft with particular passenger loads, whether
or not a purser is one of the attendants, and regardless of
the type of flight, i.e., pure domestic, domestic segment, or
transpacific (except interport).

49. In general the passenger loads in first class are
smaller relative to capacity than those in tourist class, and
generally, the commercial flights on which pursers regularly
are scheduled have smaller passenger loads relative to ca-
pacity than the flights on which pursers are not scheduled.
On non-747 aircraft, generally one cabin attendant works in
first class and two in the tourist cabin. On the 747, generally
two or three attendants work in first class, with five or six
in tourist.

50. The relative “work pace” or “work load” of pursers
and cabin attendants depends upon a number of variables,
including the position being occupied by the individual in
the cabin, the type of equipment, the length of the flight, the

36a

number of passengers and the number and allocation of the
cabin attendants. The smaller passenger load per cabin
attendant in the first class section (where the purser works)
normally results in a more leisurely work pace than in the
tourist section. The workpace and workload on cabin at-
tendants is normally greater on “short hop” schedules than
on longer segment flights.

51. Virtually all duties assigned to cabin attendants are
performed by all cabin attendants, regardless of classifica-
tion. In general, cabin attendants are responsible for mak-
ing pre-departure checks of the cabin; greeting and seating
passengers; securing the cabin for take-off; providing food
and beverage service, tending to passenger needs; briefing
passengers on emergency procedures; guiding and assisting
passengers in the event of emergencies; completing required
documentation; answering passenger questions; keeping the
cabin in a neat and orderly condition, before, during, and
after the flight; insuring that passengers conform to re-
quired regulations; and deplaning passengers.

52. One of the most important (if not the most impor-
tant) responsibilities of all cabin attendants is insuring, to
the greatest extent possible, the safety of passengers in the
event of an emergency. All cabin attendants must have
detailed knowledge of first aid techniques and be able to
deal on an instantaneous basis with a myriad of medical
emergencies in flight. All cabin attendants are required to
possess a thorough knowledge of emergency procedures and
equipment on each type of aircraft the Company operates.
To this end (a) a great portion of a cabin attendant’s initial
pre-hire training is devoted to emergency procedures and
equipment; (b) every year each cabin attendant is required
to complete an Emergency Recurrent Training course and

37a

pass examinations related thercto (or be grounded); (c) each
attendant must take a training course in aircraft familiariza-
tion each time a new type plane is put into use; (d) pre-
departure emergency briefings are conducted by the Senior
Cabin Attendant prior to every flight; (e) ech attendant is
required to have thorough knowledge of the voluminous and
detailed emergency instructions contained in the Cabin
Service Manual; and (f) cabin attendants periodically are
evaluated by means of unannounced check rides by super-
visors, which include testing.on emergency procedures and
equipment.

53. Aside from doing everything possible to insure pas-
senger safety in the event of an emergency, the most impor-
tant aspect of the job of all cabin attendants, whatever their
classification, is acquiring and maintaining the goodwill of
the Company’s passengers. The Company is in the business
of, and derives its revenues and profits from, transporting
persons from one place to another. The success of the Com-
pany depends upon the goodwill of the passengers, the con-
fidence they have in its ability to perform the services offered
and the respect they have toward the Company. All cabin
attendants play an extremely important part in dealing with
the public since they are in contact with the passengers for a
prolonged period of time, indeed, for far greater periods of
time than any other Company representatives. Thus, no
matter which particular duty a cabin aticndant is performing
at a particular time, as it involves passenger contact the
cabin attendant must exercise a high degree of poise, tct,
friendliness, good judgment and adaptability.

54. The type and quality of food service offered by the
Company varies greatly between its flights, and between

38a

first and tourist class sections. The Company offers the fol-
lowing types of food service:

(a) Pre-set casserole service, which is boarded onto
the aircraft in pre-set fashion, and requires the cabin
attendants to heat the entree item in an oven aboard the
aircraft, place it upon the pre-set tray, and deliver the
entire meal at one time on a tray to the passenger.

(b) Out-of-galley china course service in which the
food is loaded aboard the aircraft in bulk, heated by the
cabin attendants in bulk, and is dished onto china dinner-
ware by the cabin attendants and carried from the galley
to the passenger. The meal is served in various courses.

(c) Cart service, which is virtually identical to out-
of-galley china course service, except that each course is
served to the passenger from a serving cart located in the
aisle in front of the passenger. On soine flights, a combi-
nation of the above types of food service is offered.

55. The pre-set casserole service is generaly utilized in
tourist class on all of the Company’s scheduled commercial
flights. This service with meals of a higher quality is regu-
larly used in first class. All types of services variously are
(or have been) utilized in first class, the domain of the senior
cabin attendant—purser or stewardess. The Company’s
cabin service manual and periodic service bulletins issued
to all cabin attendants carefully describe the preparation
and serving procedures for each type of meal service, and

the duties of the various cabin attendants with respect to
that service.

56. Food and beverage service is one of the competitive
components of the Company’s passenger service. The Com-

39a

pany meets its stiffest competition in this service area on the
international routes on which the pursers are present. Dur-
ing the period 1965-1970, in an effort to upgrade the food
and beverage service on these flights, the Company hired
pursers with food and beverage skills and experience. It also
gave special training to pursers and interested cabin attend-
ants in an internationally flavored cart service cuisine. The
purser was principally responsible for the proper utilization
of this service. Normally the purser dished the food and
mixed the drinks while stewardesses served and took orders.
Currently, this service is utilized in a more limited fashion
on the 747s as an extension of the galley. On flights be-
tween Anchorage and Tokyo, which utilize 320 equipment,
the full cart service is still used.

57. Pursers perform no duties with respect to food serv-
ice which are not also performed by stewardesses, cither on
the same flight or on other flights. The duties assigned to
the Senior Cabin Attendant in the preparation and service
of cart service are identical, whether such attendant is a
purser or a stewardess. The duties of the Senior Cabin At-
tendant (purser or stewardess) in the preparation and serv-
ice of first class meals where cart service is not utilized are
identical to those of the other first class attendants (where
there are such). With respect to food service on MAC and
commercial charter flights (and on other flights with no first
class service at all), the duties of the Senior Cabin Attendant
are the same as all other cabin attendants on such flights.

58. All cabin service attendants variously have certain
responsibilities with respect to documentation. Both pursers
and stewardesses have certain major responsibilities with
respect to liquor service and documentation pertaining

40a

thereto. On all regularly scheduled commercial flights, liquor
is provided without charge in first class and is sold to pas-
sengers in tourist class. No liquor is served on MAC flights.
Thus pursers are not responsible for liquor sales and receipts.
Cabin service attendants who do sell liquor are responsible
for collecting the appropriate prices in whatever currency
tendered and when necessary convert Asian currencies into
U.S. equivalents. They are required to complete Company
records with respect to the beginning and ending inventories
of liquor “kits” boarded and a sales and deposit record
(Form AC-237) and a beverage usage report form (Form
FS-59). In first class, only a beverage use form is required
(Form FS-7 or FS-11). On flights carrying tax free liquor,
certain United States custom inventory forms must be com-
pleted in both first class and tourist. Cabin attendants arc
subject to discipline for improper completion of any of
these forms and the Company is subject to a fine for the im-
proper completion of the United States Customs liquor in-
ventory forms.

59. There are certain other Company documents and
forms which all cabin attendants are responsible for at
various times:

(a) On all flights, the senior cabin attendant and the
senior in tourist must complete the In-Flight-Service re-
port (Form FS-23) on which are recorded the names of
the cabin service crew, passenger count, number of bev-
erages sold and meals boarded, departure and arrival
times, and comments regarding services or special or
unusual events during flight.

(b) On all flights, the senior cabin attendant and the
senior in tourist must complete the log book in which are
recorded cabin items requiring servicing or repair.

4la

(c) On all non-747 flights, the senior cabin attendant
and the senior in tourist must prepare seating charts.
Seating charts are not required on international 747

flights but are required in first class on domestic 747
flights.

(d) On all flights, where circumstances require, com-
pletion of forms pertaining to in-flight movies, ticket up-
grading, meal vouchers, accident reports and lost and
found articles. Cabin attendants are subject to discipline
for improper completion of these forms.

60. In addition to the Company forms, and the U. S.
Customs forms related to liquor, various governments re-
quire that certain documentation be handled by the airline.
Cabin attendants (generally the senior cabin attendant) have
certain responsibilities with respect to such documentation,
which are described precisely in the Cabin Service Manual
and cabin service bulletins. There are certain government
documentation duties performed on both purser and non-
purser flights.

1) On all flights from mainland U.S. to Hawaii the
Senior Cabin Attendant, almost always a stewardess, is
responsible for:

(a) Passing out and collecting an agricultural dec-
laration form (Form A), upon which each passenger
is to list any plants or live animals which he is bringing
into Hawaii. In passing out the form, the Senior Cabin
Attendant tells the passengers what the form is about,
and explains how they will know whether or not they
are required to fill it out.

(b) Spraying the cabin with an insecticide prior to

42a

arrival and recording such on a Certificate of Disin-
sectization. (From October 1969 to December 1970,
pursers were regularly assigned to some, but not all,
of such flights. Between 1954 and 1969, and since
1971, only stewardesses (and FSAs) hav® been regu-
larly scheduled on these flights.)

2) On flights from the U.S. to Winnipeg, stewardesses
are responsible for passing out Canadian customs and
immigrations forms to passengers, seeing that the appro-
priate passengers complete them in flight, and answering
passenger questions about them. On flights from Winni-
peg to the U.S., stewardesses are responsible for passing
out U.S. customs forms (Form 6059-B) to passengers,
seeing that they are completed in flight and answering
passenger questions about them.

3) The U.S. Immigration Service has had an agree-
ment with the Company since 1967 which permits the
Company to accept for passage aliens transiting the U.S.
without a visa (“TRWOV”). The Company assumes the
responsibility of the alien’s continuous transit through,
and departure from the U.S., and severe penalties will be
levied if a TRWOV passenger should deplane and dis-
appear within the U.S. TRWOV passengers are carried
on flights both with and without a purser. Such passen-
gers are placed in the custody of the Senior Cabin At-
tendant, who must assume direct personal responsibility
to assure safe delivery and transfer of TRWOV passen-
gers. The Senior Cabin Attendant maintains custody of
the TRWOV passenger’s travel documents during the
flight. Failure to carry out these responsibilities subjects
the cabin attendant to discipline.

4) On all international flights, all cabin attendants

43a

are required to complete properly their own customs
forms, and also are required to carry a valid passport.
Failure to properly comply with these responsibilities
subjects the attendant to discipline and can result in fines
of the attendant and the Company.

61. The various governments at all of the international
ports served by the Company impose certain policies, pro-
cedures and practices with respect to customs, immigration
and quarantine (CIQ) requirements. As at the inception of
the purser classification in 1947, the purser today is respon-
sible for managing the internationai CIQ documentation re-
quirements for passengers, crew and cargo. The various
governmental CIQ documentation requirements vary and
change from port to port, so that pursers are responsible for
knowing and complying with these different and changing
requirements at United States ports and at cach of the
various foreign ports, including Tokyo, Osaka, Seoul, Oki-
nawa, Taipei, Hong Kong and Manila. The various inter-
national CIQ documents and the detailed procedures with
respect to each are subject to frequent revision, sometimes
with little or no advance warning. Pursers are required to
remain constantly abreast of these changes and to implement
them, on many occasions even prior to receiving Official
instructions or directions from NWA. In addition, there are
separate documents required on NWA’s military contract
flights, which requirements vary with the location of the
base. In general, these CIQ duties fall into four categories:

(a) Transporting.a pouch—teceiving and checking
the contents of a pouch containing various government
' documentation from a Company transportation agent

44a

(ground personnel) prior to departure and delivering it
to another Company transportation agent upon arrival.

(b) Assembling “manifest books’—these generally
contain copies of the General Declaration, cargo mani-
fests and (on some interport and MAC flights) a pas-
senger manifest. Cargo and passenger manifests (which
constitute listings of cargo and passengers aboard the
flight, respectively) are filled out by Company transporta-
tion agents, placed in folders by place of destination and
delivered to the purser in the pouch prior to departure.
The purser makes no entries on the manifests. The re-
quired number of manifest books (specified in the Cabin
Service Manual) are prepared by sorting copies of the
cargo manifests into an order specified in the Manual and
stapling the bundle together with the General Declaration
(and, if there is one, the passenger manifest) to form a
“book.” On MAC flights there are rarely any cargo
manifests. The books are turned over to Company trans-
portation agents upon arrival, who in turn distribute them
to government personnel.

(c) Passing out various customs, immigrations and/or
quarantine forms—these are forms which passengers are
required to fill out prior to landing. The required forms
for each port are placed into the pouch by Company
transportation agents prior to departure, segregated for
each port. The purser (and occasionally other cabin at-
tendants) passes the forms out to the passengers, who
complete and retain them to turn over to government
officials after arrival. While the passenger immigration
forms vary slightly from country to country, the basic
information called for by the forms is essentially the same:
name of passenger, address, citizenship, passport number,

45a

and address while in country. Likewise, while the pas-
senger customs forms vary slightly from country to
country, the basic information called for—goods being
brought into the country which were purchased in other
countries—remains the same. The forms are printed in
both English and the applicable Asian language, and
most are self-explanatory and/or contain written instruc-
tions on their completion. Pursers (as well as other cabin
attendants) answer passenger questions regarding such
forms to the extent that they know the answers. Neither
pursers nor stewardesses are responsible for knowing the
answers to questions unless the information necessary to
answer is contained in the Cabin Service Manual. Stew-
ardesses know the answers to most questions. Pursers have
no responsibility for completing passengers forms. Pro-
cedures with respect to passing out the passenger forms
are detailed specifically in the Manual.

(d) Making entries on certain documents—pursers
are responsible for making entries on only two govern-
ment documents (other than the U.S. Customs liquor
form)

(1) General Declaration (Form 7507): most of the
form is completed by Company transportation agents.
The purser checks crew passport numbers for accuracy,
enters the number of passengers, recites that he has
sprayed the plane, and lists any passengers whom the
attendants believe to be ill. The General Declaration is

required only on transpacific interport flights (commercial
and MAC).

(2) Aijircraft/Vessel Report (I-92): this is a US.
immigration form used to record an aircraft's entry into

46a

or exit from the U.S. It is used only on west-bound domes-
tic segments of international flights and on Tokyo to
U.S. transpacific flights. The purser enters the name and
nationality of the airline (always the same, i.e., “North-
west USA”), flight number, date, ports of arrival and de-
parture (always Seattle, Anchorage or Honolulu, and
Tokyo), ports of destination, total number of passengers

and number of passengers bound for each port. It sathes
fifteen or twenty seconds for the purser to fill out the

I-92. He turns it over to a Company transportation agent
upon arrival.

62. The government documentary duties of pursers
described in the paragraph above are not all required on all
purser flights. Pursers perform the following documentary

duties on the various types of flights on which they are (or
were) used:

(a) On pure domestic flights: none.

(b) On the eastbound portion of domestic segments:
transporting the pouch only.

(c) On the westbound portion of domestic segments:
transporting the pouch, U.S. passenger immigrations form

(I-94), and, during certain periods of time, Aircraft/
Vessel Report (I-92).

(d) On US. to Tokyo flights: manifest books, pas-
senger forms, and General Declaration.

(e) On Tokyo to U.S. flights: manifest books, pas-

senger forms, during certain periods Aircraft/Vessel Re-
port (I-92), and General Declaration.

47a

(f) On interport flights: manifest books, passenger
forms, and General Declaration.

63. Pursers are instructed and expected to carry out
their international documentation responsibilities during
times when there is little or no passenger service. While
they are engaged in these tasks, the other cabin attendants
provide any needed pasenger service and perform their other
assigned tasks. All documentation duties are in addition to
and not in place of regular passenger service duties for all
cabin service personnel. Pursers are responsible and ac-
countable for the international documentation. Pursers have
not been disciplined to any greater extent or degree for
failing to properly perform their tasks with respect to gov-
ernment documentation then have other cabin attendants
been disciplined for failing to propertly perform their tasks
with respect to Company and government documentation.
Of all pursers employed at any time since 1965, only two
have ever been suspended (one time each for a period of
two days each) for improper performance with respect to
government documentation, whereas stewardesses have re-
ceived suspensions of greater duration for improper docu-
ment work (including, for example, one 2-day and one
4-day suspension received by one stewardess, who was a
witness at a trial, for failing to submit her own pay forms
on time).

64. The documentary duties described which are (or
were) assigned only to pursers involve no greater skill, sffort
or responsibility than does the documentary duties assigned
to all cabin attendants. In addition the documentary duties
of the purser does not make that job, in the aggregate, one
requiring greater skill, effort or responsibility than the stew-
ardess job.

48a

65. The Company’s Cabin Service Manual contains a
“chain of command” during flight. The pilot is first in the
chain of command, the co-pilot second, the third member of
the cockpit crew is third and the “Senior Cabin Attendant”
is fourth in the chain of command. If one purser is aboard,
he is denominated the Senior Cabin Attendant irrespective
of his relative length of service as compared to the other
cabin attendants. If two or more pursers are aboard the
flight, the most senior purser is the Senior Cabin Attendant.
If no purser is aboard the flight, the most senior stewardess
or FSA is the Senior Cabin Attendant. On interport flights,
however, the male Asian FSA (who is assigned to most
interport flights) is automatically the Senior ir Tourist
regardless of his seniority. It is rare that the captain or
other members of the flight deck crew become involved in
matters pertaining to cabin service or cabin attendants al-
though all cabin attendants are subject to the authority and

direction of the captain who is completely responsible for
all crew members.

66. Among the cabin attendant crew, the Company’s
Cabin Service Manual provides that a purser shall always
be considered the senior attendant and shall coordinate the
activities of the other attendants and shall be held “respon-
sible and accountable” for conduct of service on the entire
flight. Absent a purser, the cabin attendant with the most
seniority shall be the senior attendant also responsible for
the coordination of cabin service activities on the entire
flight but accountable only for the conduct of service in
that section of the aircraft in which he or she works, the
accountability in the remaining section or sections being
placed on the senior attendant in that section. Duty assign-
ments aboard the flight are made by the senior cabin at-
tendant. Pursers are always assigned to the first class section.

49a

67. Senior cabin attendants (whether purser or steward-
ess) cagage in the following activities in discharging their
“supervisory” responsibilities:

1) Monitoring and where necessary correcting work
of other cabin attendants.

2) Determining time of meal service and movie
showing.

3) Moving attendants from section to section to
balance work loads.

4) Give pre-departure briefings on emergency equip-
ment and procedures.

Stewardesses who serve as Senior Cabin Attendant are sub-
ject to discipline if they fail to carry out their “supervisory”
responsibilities, and are held just as accountable as pursers
who fail to carry out their “supervisory” responsibilities.
Stewardesses who serve as Senior in Tourist are likewise
subject to discipline if they fail to carry out their supervisory
responsibilities. The Company does not maintain a merit
system whereby either pursers or stewardesses who “super-
vise” well are paid more than those who do not supervise as
well. Ail pursers are paid on the same scale, and all steward-
esses on the same scale, regardless of how well or poorly
they supervise.

68. The duties of each cabin attendant position are
clearly defined in the Cabin Service Manual and cabin serv-
ice bulletins. The Manual presents information, responsibili-
ties, and instructions for cabin attendants in a clear and
concise manner. It describes in detail cabin attendant duties,
procedures and responsibilities. Each cabin attendant is
required to be thoroughly familiar with all material covered

”
50a

in the Manual, and procedures in the Manual are expected
to be followed explicitly. As cabin attendants acquire ex-
perience, they are better able to perform their duties with
less need for coordination by the Senior Cabin Attendant.
Relatively new attendants are less certain of their duties
and how to perform them, and require closer watching and
guidance than do more senior attendants. Normally, all of
the stewardesses on flights on which pursers are assigned
are relatively senior and experienced. The pursers’ “super-
visory” responsibilities therefore normally are less demand-
ing than the “supervisory” responsibilities of stewardesses
who serve as Senior Cabin Attendants on domestic flights
with more junior stewardesses. Because the cabin attendants
with the greatest seniority almost always elect to work in
the first class cabin forcing the more junior and less ex-
perienced cabin attendant to work in the tourist class cabin,
and because there are more cabin attendants in tourist class
than in first class, the Senior in Tourist normally spends
greater time and effort in coordinating the duties of other
cabin attendants than does the Senior Cabin Attendant, on
both purser and non-purser flights.

69. The Company hired, trained and promoted individ-
uals in the purser classification with the expectation that
they would exercise leadership and supervisory responsibili-
ties immediately upon being placed as pursers. As automatic
“senior cabin attendants” on all flights to which pursers
were assigned, pursers are “responsible and accountable for
the entire cabin service staff.” Cabin Service Attendants
other than pursers, who functioned on particular flights as
the “senior cabin attendant” are “responsible for the entire
flight” in the proper coordination of cabin service activities
but “accountable” only for the conduct of service in the

Sla

section of the aircraft to which assigned. In the perform-
ance of the duties of the purser and the non-purser senior
cabin attendant, responsibility is synonymous with account-
ability. Only in the purser’s formal relationship with the
Company does his accountability differ from the non-purser
senior cabin attendant and that difference is derived from
status rather than as a function of the job. Cabin service
attendants are employed to serve and protect Company pas-
sengers. The “supervisory” functions of senior cabin at-
tendants—whether purser or stewardess—are less important
than, and require no greater skill, effort or responsibility,
than the other functions assigned to all cabin attendants.

70. Pursers are paid on a different and higher pay scale
than other cabin service attendants. In each round of col-
lective bargaining negotiations since at least the mid-1950's,
the union proposed that stewardesses serving as Senior Cabin
Attendant receive a supplement to their pay. In cach instance,
the Company has refused on the asserted ground that the
longevity step provisions of the stewardess pay scale, which
pay more senior stewardesses more than relatively junior
stewardesses, together with the requirement that the most
senior stewardess on a flight serve as Senior Cabin Attendant,
provided added compensation for performing in that posi-
tion.

71. When pursers were scheduled regularly on pure do-
mestic flights, their duties were identical to those performed
by the Senior Cabin Attendant on domestic flights without a
purser. Pursers had no documentary duties on such flights
which are not performed by stewardesses on other flights.
When pursers were regularly assigned to domestic segments
of international flights (1959 through December, 1970),

52a

their duties (other than the minor documentary responsibili-
ties previously described) were identical to those performed
by stewardesses serving as Senior Cabin Aitendant on non-
purser domestic flights. The only respect in which the duties
of the purser as Senior Cabin Attendant on transpacific and
interport flights differs from those of a stewardess as Senior
Cabin Attendant on non-purser flights is that pursers per-
form certain government documentation responsibilities.
These documentation duties do not make the purser job one
requiring greater skill, effort or responsibility than the stew-
ardess job. When the Company decided to remove pursers
from the domestic segments of ini:rnational flights in De-
cember 1970, it made no changes of any kind in the duties
assigned to, and performed by, cabin attendants on the east-
bound portions of such flights. The only change made with
respect to the west-bound portion of such flights was that
Company transportation agents, who had “always” had
“the responsibility . . . to insure that each out-bound alien
has a properly completed I-94” (U. S. Immigrations form)
were now assigned the additional responsibility to collect the
I-94s (which pursers had previously done in flight).

72. The work of all cabin attendants on MAC flights is
less demanding than on other flights. There is no class serv-
ice, no liquor is served, the food service is less elaborate than
even in the tourist section of commercial flights, and the
Passengers are less demanding. The purser’s government
documentation duties on MAC flights, where there are any,
are relatively minor. On the MAC flights flown out of Hono-
lulu, on which there frequently was more than one purser
assigned, and on which all cabin attendants were pursers
from October 1969 through June 1970, the duties of all but
the most senior purser (Senior Cabin Attendant) were iden-

§3u

tical to the duties performed by stewardesses on other MAC
flights. This is also true on the occasions when more than
one purser is assigned to commercial flights.

73. A substantial percentage of the Company’s overall
utilization of pursers consisted of their assignment to pure
domestic flights or to domestic segments of international
flights. Many pursers flew such flights exclusively, for months
or years at a time. In December, 1970, following the filing of
this lawsuit and the BRAC strike, the Company removed
pursers from pure domestic flights and domestic segments of
international flights. Similarly, a substantial percentage of
the Company’s utilization of pursers has consisted of their
assignment to MAC flights. Many pursers flew such flights
exclusively, for months or years at a time.

74. Until January 1971, boih purser and stewardess
schedules normally were constructed so that the maximum
number of consecutive nights away from home on a trip
during the month ranged from zero to six nights. In and
after January 1971, the Company redesigned its purser
schedules so that many, but not all, pursers would be away
from home on a trip during the month from eight to thirteen
consecutive nights. Stewardess schedules continue to be con-
structed so that the normal maximum number of consecutive
nights away from home on a trip during the month range
from zero to six, although some schedules require more.

75. Until January, 1971, purser and stewardess “nights
away” working conditions were not dissimilar at all. The
eight to thirteen day trips which some pursers have flown
since January, 1971, do not constitute substantially dissimt-
lar working conditions from those of other cabin attendants.
More consecutive days away from home also means more

54a

consecutive days at home during the month. The preferences
of cabin attendants in this regard are highly subjective—
some prefer one long trip a month, while others prefer sev-
erai shorter trips; some find that remaining in the Orient for
several consecutive days easier on their “biological clock”
than repeated transpacific flights with frequent time zone
changes. Because ground time is not counted toward flight
time, purser schedules (encompassing longer flights) entail
fewer actual hours of work, and fewer days away from
home, than short-hop domestic stewardess schedules.

76. Although pursers have flown for many years to
Manila, Okinawa, Taipei and Seoul on interport flights, the
Company's schedules have never required, until 1972, that
they layover in those cities. Pursers flying interport normally
begin and end their day in Tokyo, flying round-trip flights
to other Asian cities. From 1947 to the present date, Ameri-
can stewardesses regularly have had layovers in Tokyo. In
1966, the Company obtained authorization to fly to Hong
Kong. At various times thereafter, the Company has con-
structed some purser interport schedules providing for one
night layovers in Hong Kong. Those few pursers who have
layovers in Hong Kong (or, recently, other Asian cities) do
not have working conditions dissimilar from those of cabin
attendants who do not layover-in interport cities. (In addi-
tion, stewardesses flying on certain MAC flights have had
layovers in interport cities.)

77. ‘Interport flights are manned with an American
purser and Asian stewardesses and FSAs (all of whom speak
English). For years, substantial numbers of purser sched-
ules were constructed so that they required no interport
flying at all, and, therefore, the pursers filling such schedules

5Sa

did not have layovers in Hong Kong or fly with Asian cabin
attendant crews. This included, inter alia, all pursers based
in Washington, D.C. and in Honolulu. From 1952 to 1957
no American pursers at all were scheduled on interport
flights. Flights flown by pursers with Asian cabin attendants
pose no more difficult or different working conditions than
flights without Asian attendants.

78. The job of purser and the job of stewardess require
equal skill, effort and responsibility and are performed under
similar working conditions.

79. The compensation of all cabin attendants is estab-
lished through collective bargaining. There are two separate
base salary scales—one for pursers and one for stewardesses
(and FSAs). Each scale provides for longevity step increases.
Pursers presently receive the top step in their sixth year as a
purser, whereas stewardesses receive the top step in their
ninth year. The base salary of both pursers and stewardesses
is based upon 67 flight hours per month. Additional flight
hours are compensated by an hourly incentive (overtime)
rate (higher for pursers than for stewardesses). In addition,
stewardesses who engage in “foreign flying—defined as all
flights to or from any foreign country, Alaska, or Hawaii
(but excluding Winnepeg, Canada)—receive a $1.00 per
hour supplement for each hour flown on such flights.

80. Pursers’ salaries are, and always have been approxi-
mately 30 to 55 percent higher than those of stewardesses of
equal longevity engaged in domestic flying, and approxi-
mately 20 to 35 percent higher than stewardesses of equal
longevity engaged solely in “foreign flying.”

81. The Company maintains records which enable it
to determine what flight a given cabin attendant has flown

S6a

each day, the position held each day, and the time spent by
that cabin attendant each day. These records enable the
Company to pay cabin attendants different amounts for
different portions of their monthly service. FSA's temporar-
ily filling purser vacancies are paid the purser rate only
while flying as pursers. Stewardesses flying international re-
ceive the “foreign flying” supplement only for the hours
spent on the international flight. Permanently assigned
pursers receive the purser rate and those of a given longevity
the same salary whether or not they are filling the purser
position on the flight and irrespective of the kind of flight,
domestic, foreign or interport. Except for the “foreign flying
supplement” all stewardesses of a given longevity receive the
same salary, irrespective of the nature of the flights or the
position occupied on the flight.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and over
the subject matter of this action, pursuant to the provisions
of the Equal Pay Act [29 U.S.C. §206(d)] and Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. §2000 (e) ].

2. Northwest Airlines, Inc. has discriminated on the
basis of sex in willful violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29
U.S.C. §206(d) (1), 29 U.S.C. §255(a), on jobs the per-
formance of which require equal skill, effort and responsi-
bility and which are performed under similar working
conditions by:

(a) Paying female stewardesses lower salaries and
pensions than male pursers.

(b) Providing less expensive and less desirable lay-
over accommodations than male cabin attendants.

7

in

57a

(c) Providing female stewardesses no cleaning allow:

ance while providing a uniform cleaning allowance to
male cabin attendants.

3. Northwest Airlines, Inc. has discriminated on the
basis of sex in willful violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29
U.S.C. §206(d)(1), 29 U.S.C. §255(a), by paying Mary
P. Laffey a lower salary as a purser than it pays to male
pursers with equivalent length of cabin attendant service.

4. Northwest Airlines, Inc. has violated Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e)-2(a), (here-
inafter “Title VII"), by paying female stewardesses lower
salaries and pensions than male pursers for equal work on
jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort,

and responsibility, and which are performed under similar
working conditions.

5. Northwest Airlines, Inc. has violated Title VII:

(a) By discriminating against females because of

their sex in filling purser vacancies from July 2, 1965
to date.

(b) By providing from June 15, 1967 to date that
stewardesses who became pursers do not get credit for
their stewardess seniority on the purser seniority list,
whereas male FSA’s who have become pursers (both
before and after June 15, 1967), get credit for their FSA
seniority on the purser list.

(c) By providing that stewardesses who become pur-
sers do not get credit for their stewardess seniority on the

purser seniority list, thus perpetuating the effects of past
discrimination from June 15, 1967 to date.

58a

(d) By providing that stewardesses who become pur-
sers are slotted at the bottom of the purser pay scale and
thus receive lower salaries than male pursers with equal
cabin attendant longevity, thus perpetuating the effects of
past discrimination from June 15, 1967 to date.

(e) By changing its procedures and standards for
selecting pursers, lengthening the probationary period,
denying consideration of purser bids to stewardesses who
have not flown with a purser for four years, according
automatic preference to junior pursers Over senior stew-
ardesses in bidding for purser vacancies, discouraging
and attempting to deter stewardesses from bidding on
purser vacancies, failing to post notices of all purser
vacancies at all cabin attendants bases, from June 15,
1967 to date.

(f) By demoting Mary P. Laffey from purser to
stewardess and continuing her as a stewardess, by paying
her a lower salary as a purser than it paid male pursers
hired as cabin attendants subsequent to her, thus perpetu-
ating the effects of past discrimination.

(g) By imposing a “chain of command” aboard its
planes under which all male cabin attendants, irrespective
of classification or length of service were superior to all
female cabin attendants.

(h) By forbidding only female cabin attendants to
wear eyeglasses, to be without cleaning allowances, to
have free choice of luggage, to have single rooms on lay-
overs, to be without weight prescriptions and weight
monitoring and by imposing a shorter maximum height
requirement for female cabin attendants.

ee

59a

6. Each of the above enumerated Title VII violations
are continuing violation, and each continued during the
90 day period preceding the filing of charges with the Equal
Employment Opportunities Commission and therefore, none
is barred by the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §2000(e)-5(d).

JUDGMENT SHALL BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

/s/ AUBREY E. ROBINSON, JR.
Judge

DATED: November 12, 1973

Ib

APPENDIX B

[CAPTION ]

MEMORANDUM

This matter is before the Court for entry of a Final Order
with regard to damages and remedies. Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law establishing liability herein were entered
by the Court on November 12, 1973. The parties have
intensively and thoroughly briefed and argued the present
issues. Two matters merit brief comment.

The Court has not awarded liquidated damages under
the Equal Pay Act. Implicit in this is a finding that Defend-
ant has sustained its defense under 29 U.S.C. §260. The
Defendant did have reasonable grounds for belief that it
was not violating the Equal Pay Act. While this Court has
found as fact that the jobs of purser and stewardess are
in fact equal, it was not unreasonable for the Company to
have believed otherwise. Five factors support this conclu-
sion: the traditional practice of the Company in treating the
positions as unequal, the general industry practice to the
same effect, the acquiescence of the stewardesses’ bargaining
representative in this arrangement, the absence of any griev-

2b

ances or even suggestions from stewardesses to the contrary
prior to the present controversy, and the absence of any
clear legal precedent or guideline precisely in point. The
Court finds “good faith” on the part of the Defendant and
this finding is not inconsistent with the earlier finding of a
“willful” violation of the Equal Pay Act. See Coleman v.
Jiffy June Farms, Inc., 458 F.2d 1139 (Sth Cir. 1971).
The Equal Pay Act violation was willful in that Defendant
was fully aware of the Equal Pay Act and adopted a delib-
erate and knowing course of conduct despite its awareness.
The Court does not find an intentional, bad faith, attempt
to evade the law. The judgment of the Company that its
conduct would not be found to be in violation of the Equal
Pay Act has been found to be in error. The conduct of the
Company in the exercise of that judgment was willful.

The second matter which warrants discussion is the re-
covery period for back-pay under Title VII. The Court has
allowed a recovery period extending back two years from the
date on which the charges herein were lodged with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. The Court has dis-
cretion to award back-pay to July 2, 1965, but has chosen to
limit that award herein. The 1972 amendment to Title VII,
42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(g), limiting back-pay liability to not
more than two years prior to filing of charges with the
E.E.O.C. is not applicable to this case. Nevertheless, it does
indicate that Congress felt some limitation is appropriate to
avoid “windfall” damage awards and to avoid harsh, and
sometimes unbearable, economic burdens upon employers.
The amendment also indicates that two years is an appro-
priate and reasonable period for measuring the adequacy of
the remedy for the Plaintiffs. In light of these considera-

*

wes Ae tem

3b

tions, the Court has, in the exercise of its discretion, limited
the recovery period.

/s/ AUBREY E. ROBINSON, JR.
United States District Court

DATE: April 3, 1974

ORDER }
The Court having heretofore issued findings of fact and

conclusions of law, and having held therein that defendant

Northwest Airlines, Inc., violated the Equal Pay Act of
1963, 29 U.S.C. §206(d)(1), and Title VII of the Civil-
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2, in enumerated
respects; and all parties having filed briefs and presented
oral argument with respect to the remedy questions; it is by
the Court this 3rd day of April, 1974;

ORDERED, as follows:

1. GENERAL INJUNCTION—The Defendant North-
west Airlines, Inc., and its officers, agents, employees, suc-
cessors and all persons or organizations in active concert or
participation with it, hereby are permanently enjoined and
restrained from discriminating in any aspect of employment
of cabin attendants on the basis of sex and from failing or
refusing to fully implement, or to participate and cooperate

in the implementation of, the provisions set forth in the body
of this Order.

2. DEFINITIONS—For purposes of this Order, the
following definitions shall apply:

(a) The term “Company” shall refer to Northwest Air-
lines, Inc.

4b

(b) The term “Union” shall refer to Air Line Pilots
Association, or any labor organization which succeeds

it as bargaining representative of the Company's cabin
attendants.

(c) The term “cabin attendant(s)” shall refer, collec-
tively, to all American-based employees of the Company
whose principal duties consist of providing in-flight cabin
service, whether denominated stewardess, purser, flight
service attendant, steward, or otherwise.

(d) The term “Equal Pay Act plaintiff(s)” shall refer,
collectively, to all female cabin attendants employed by the
Company who filed timely written consents with this Court,
in accordance with 29 U.S.C. §256, to become parties plain-
tiff with respect to the Equal Pay Act aspects of this lawsuit.

(e) The term “Title VII plaintiff(s)” shall refer, co!-
lectively, to all female cabin attendants employed by the
Company at any time on or after July 2, 1965, excluding
only those who filed timely written elections with this Court
to be excluded from this lawsuit in its entirety.

(f) The term “Equal Pay Act recovery period” shall
refer, for each Equal Pay Act plaintiff, to the period com-
mencing three years prior to the date said plaintiff filed a
written consent with this Court and ending on the date the

Company equalizes wages in accordance with Paragraph 3
of this Order.

(g) The term “salary” shall refer to pay for services
performed, as well as such other benefits (e.g. paid leave,
life insurance) as are computed on the basis of salary.

Sb

3. EQUALIZATION OF WAGES—AFFIRMATIVE
INJUNCTION.

(a) Salary: Beginning with the date of this Order, the
Company shall pay all female cabin attendants the salaries
prescribed in the purser pay scale (base pay, and incentive
pay if any) of the then-current collective bargaining agree-
ment. The longevity of each female cabin attendant for
purposes of applying the purser pay scale shall be her system
seniority. Thereafter, the Company shall not reduce the
salary of any cabin attendant below the level to which said
purser pay scale entitles her at any given time, her longevity
for pay purposes at such time being her system seniority.

(b) Pensions: Beginning with the date of this Order,
any pension payment made to any female cabin attendant
shall be computed as though said female cabin attendant
had been classified and paid as a purser throughout the
period of her employment as a cabin attendant.

(c) Lodging: Beginning with the date of this Order, the
Company shall furnish single rooms to all female cabin
attendants on layovers, which shall not be inferior in quality
to those heretofore provided to male cabin attendants. There-
after, the Company shall not assign double rooms to any
female cabin attendant, nor provide rooms to any female
cabin attendant inferior in quality to those heretofore pro-
vided to male cabin attendants.

(d) Uniform Cleaning Allowance: Beginning with the
date of this Order, the Company shall provide a quarterly
uniform cleaning allowance to each female cabin attendant
in accordance with the following standards as to eligibility
and amount:

6b

(i) Eligibility: To be eligible for a uniform cleaning
allowance in a particular calendar quarter, she must have
been employed as a cabin attendant on the first day of that
quarter and she must have been so employed for the last
full calendar month preceding such first day of the quarter.

(ii) Amount: The amount of the uniform cleaning
allowance in each quarter shall be $13 prorated on the

basis of the time on payroll as a cabin attendant employee
in such quarter.

(e) Prohibition against reducing wages to comply: The
Company shall not, contrary to 29 U.S.C. §206(d)(1),
reduce the wage rate of any employee in order (a) to ac-
complish the equalization required by this Paragraph 3 or
(b) otherwise to comply with the provisions of 29 U.S.C.
§206(d)(1).

4. INJUNCTION AGAINST FUTURE WAGE DIS-
CRIMINATION—The Company shall not, contrary to 29
U.S.C. §206(d)(1) or 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a) and (h),
discriminate on the basis of sex between cabin attendants
by paying wages to cabin attendants at a rate less than the
rate at which it pays wages to cabin attendants of the op-
posite sex for equal work on jobs the performance of which
requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility and which are
performed under similar working conditions.

5. MONETARY AWARD FOR THE EQUAL PAY
ACT VIOLATIONS—The Company shall pay to each
Equal Pay Act plaintiff the following monetary amounts:

(a) Foreach month during her Equal Pay Act recovery
period in which she received a salary from the Company
for service as a cabin attendant, the difference between the

7b

salary actually paid to her (including base pay, foreign
flying supplement if any, and incentive pay if any) and the
salary (base pay,.and incentive pay if any) which would
have been paid to her had she been compensated as a

purser with longevity for pay purposes equal to her system
seniority.

(b) If she received pension payments during her Equal
Pay Act recovery period, the difference between the pen-
sion payments made to her and those which would have
been made to her had they been computed on the basis of
her having been classified and paid as a purser throughout

sthe period of her employment as a cabin attendant.

(c) For each layover during her Equal Pay Act re-
covery period in which the lodging furnished by the Com-
pany required her to share a double room, the difference
between one-half the value of the double room actually
provided to her and the value of a single room had it been
provided to her.

(d) For each calendar quarter from March 1, 1970
until the end of her Equal Pay Act recovery period, a uni-
form cleaning allowance in accordance with the following
standards as to eligibility and amount:

(i) Eligibility: To be eligible for a uniform cleaning
allowance in a particular calendar quarter, she must have
been employed as a cabin attendant on the first day of that
quarter and she must have been so employed for the last
full calendar month preceding such first day of the quarter.

(ii) Amount: The amount of the uniform cleaning
allowance in each quarter shall be $13 prorated on the basis
of the time on payroll as a cabin attendant employee in
such quarter.

8b

6. BACKPAY UNDER TITLE VII FOR WAGE DIS-
CRIMINATION AGAINST EQUAL PAY ACT PLAIN-
TIFFS—The Company shall pay backpay to each Equal
Pay Act plaintiff who was employed as a cabin attendant
at any time between March 28, 1968 and the day preceding
the commencement of her Equal Pay Act recovery period,
to remedy the pay discrimination visited upon her during
said period in violation of Title VII. The amount of backpay
for each such Equal Pay Act plaintiff shall be as follows:

(a) For each month between March 28, 1968, and the
day preceding the commencement of her Equal Pay Act
recovery period in which she received a salary from the
Company for service as a cabin attendant, the difference
between the salary actually paid to her (including base
pay, foreign flying supplement, if any, and incentive pay,
if any) and the salary (base pay, and incentive pay, if any)
which would have been paid to her had she been compen-
sated as a purser with longevity for pay purposes equal to her
system seniority.

(b) For each layover between March 28, 1968, and
the day preceding commencement of her Equal Pay Act
recovery period, the difference between one-half the value
of the double room actually provided to her and the value
of a single room had it been provided to her.

7. BACKPAY UNDER TITLE VI FOR WAGE DIS-
CRIMINATION AGAINST TITLE VII PLAINTIFFS
WHO ARE NOT ALSO EQUAL PAY ACT PLAINTIFFS
—The Company shall pay backpay to each Title VII plain-
tiff who is not also an Equal Pay Act plaintiff to remedy the
pay discrimination visited upon her in violation of Title VII.

9b

The amount of backpay for each such Title VII plaintiff
shall be as follows:

(a) For each month between March 28, 1968, and the
date upon which the Company equalizes wages in accord-
ance with Paragraph 3 of this Order in which she received
a salary from the Company for service as a cabin attendant,
the difference between the salary actually paid to her (in-
cluding base pay, foreign flying supplement, if any, and
incentive pay if any) and the salary (base pay, and incentive
pay if any) which would have been paid to her had she
been compensated as a purser with longevity for pay pur-
poses equal to her system seniority.

(b) If she received pension payments at any time be-
tween July 2, 1965, and the date upon which the Company
equalizes wages in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this
Order, the difference between the pension payments made
to her and those which would have been made to her had
they been computed on the basis of her having been classi-
fied and paid as a purser throughout the period of her em-
ployment as a cabin attendant.

(c) Foreach layover between March 28, 1968, and the
date upon which the Company equalizes wages in accord-
ance with Paragraph 3 of this Order, the difference between
one-half the value of the double room actually provided to
her and the value of a single room had it been provided
to her.

(d) For each calendar quarter from March 1, 1970,
until the date upon which the Company equalizes wages in
accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Order, a uniform clean-
ing allowance in accordance with the following standards
as to eligibility and amount:

10b

(i) Eligibility: To be eligible for a uniform cleaning
allowance in a particular calendar quarter, she must have
been employed as a cabin attendant on the first day of that
quarter and she must have been so employed for the last
full calendar month preceding such first day of the quarter.

(ii) Amount: The amount of the uniform cleaning al-
lowance in each quarter shall be $13 prorated on the basis
of the time on payroll as a cabin attendant employee in
such quarter.

8. WEIGHT: NEGATIVE INJUNCTION—The Com-
pany shall not:

(a) Weigh female cabin attendants;

(b) Condition the employment of female cabin attend-
ants upon their agreeing that they may be reprimanded,
suspended (grounded) or terminated for failure to maintain
a prescribed weight;

(c) Prescribe a weight scale to which female cabin
attendants are required or expected to adhere;

(d) Reprimand, suspend (ground) or terminate any
female cabin attendant because of her weight, unless her
weight is such as to render her physically incapable of per-
forming the duties of the job.

9. WEIGHT: AFFIRMATIVE INJUNCTION—The
Company shall:

(a) Notify all female cabin attendants that it will no
longer enforce any weight requirements other than that per-
mitted by Paragraph 8(d) of this Order;

(b) Notify all female cabin attendants who signed

l1lb

agreements conditioning thcir continued employment upon
maintenance of a prescribed weight that such agreement will
not be enforced;

(c) Remove from its Cabin Service Manual all materials
relating to weight inconsistent with the prohibitions of Para-
graph 8 of this Order.

(d)) Offer immediate reinstatement, with system senior-
ity intact, to each female cabin attendant terminated on
account of weight on or after July 2, 1965;

(e) Immediately restore to flying status each female
cabin attendant who is in suspended (grounded) status on
account of weight on the date of this Order;

(f). Remove from each female cabin attendant’s person-
nel files all records of warning reprimands, and or discipline
on account of weight; but preserve such records in a central
location for so long as is necessary to compute backpay
awarded under Paragraphs 10 and 11 of this Order.

10. WEIGHT: BACKPAY: TERMINATED EM-
PLOYEES—The Company shall pay to each Title VII
plaintiff whose employment was terminated on account of
her weight on or after July 2, 1965, backpay for the period
between the date of said termination and the date reinstate-
ment is offered in accordance with Paragraph 9(d) of this
Order. The amount of backpay shall be the amount of wages
she would have earned during said period (adjusted to the
purser pay scale to the extent that the class of which she is
a member is awarded backpay for work performed during
said period), less the amount earned or earnable with reason-

able diligence from other work during said period which

would not have been performed had she not been terminated.

12b

11. WEIGHT: BACKPAY: SUSPENDED (GROUND-
ED) EMPLOYEES—The Company shall pay to each Title
VII plaintiff who lost salary by reason of a suspension
(grounding) on accourit of her weight on or after July 2,
1965, backpay for the period of said suspension (ground-
ing). The amount of backpay shall be the amount of wages
she would have earned during said period (adjusted to the
purser pay scale to the extent that the class of which she is a
member is awarded backpay for work performed during said
period), less the amount she earned from other work during
said period which would not have been performed had she
not been suspended (grounded).

12. EYEGLASSES: NEGATIVE INJUNCTION—
The Company shall not:

(a) Forbid female cabin attendants to wear eyeglasses
in flight;

(b) Condition the employment of female cabin attend-
ants upon their agreeing that they will not wear eyeglasses
in flight.

(c) Discriminate in hiring female cabin attendants on

the basis of whether they wear eyeglasses and/or would wear
eyeglasses in flight.

13. EYEGLASSES: AFFIRMATIVE INJUNCTION
—The Company shall:

(a) Notify all female cabin attendants that it will no
longer enforce any rule prohibiting the wearing of eyeglasses

in flight, and remove any contrary material from its Cabin
Service Manual;

(b) Notify all female cabin attendants who signed agree-
ments conditioning their continued employment upon not

13b

wearing eyeglasses in flight that such agreements will not
be enforced.

14. HEIGHT—The Company shall not refuse to hire
female cabin attendants because of their height, if they are
not taller than the Company has considered acceptable in

hiring male cabin attendants at any time on or after July
2, 1965.

15. LUGGAGE: NEGATIVE INJUNCTION—The
Company shall not restrict its female cabin attendants’
choice of luggage to be carried onto the plane, except that
it may require that such luggage be in good condition and

not of a size which would pose storage problems on the
plane.

16. CHAIN OF COMMAND—The Company shall not
establish a chain of command aboard flight which makes a
female cabin attendant subordinate to a male cabin attend-
ant with lesser system seniority, irrespective of their job
titles, and the Company shall revise its existing chain of
command to conform to this requirement.

17. INJUNCTION AGAINST FUTURE DISCRIMI-
NATION IN THE FILLING OF CABIN ATTENDANT
POSITIONS—The Company shall not discriminate on the
basis of sex in the filling of cabin attendant positions irre-
spective of the title of the position and the job content there-
of, unless sex constitutes a bona fide occupational qualifica-
cation for the position within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
§2000e-2(e)(1), nor shall the Company perpetuate the
effects of past discrimination by according a preference to
pursers not warranted by system seniority in the filling of
any cabin attendant position which may hereinafter be
created.

14b

18. REMEDYING THE PRIOR DISCRIMINATION
IN THE FILLING OF PURSER VACANCIES-—Counsel
for the plaintiffs, counsel for the Company, and counsel for
the Union shall meet promptly after the signing of this
Order, together with such additional persons as each of

them may designate, and shall discuss the following
questions:

(a) Whether, in light of this Order, maintenance of a
separate purser job classification, with a separate set of
monthly schedules to be bid separately, is desired;

(b) If so:

(i) What procedure should be adopted to determine
who properly belongs on the purser list, and with what rela-
tive placement thereon, in light of the Court’s findings as to
discrimination in the filling of purser positions; and

(ii) What changes must be made in the criteria for deter-
mining entitlement to future placement on said list, and
treatment following said placement, in light of the Court’s
findings of discrimination with respect to said criteria and
treatment.

Not later than 60 days after the date of this Order, coun-
sel for the parties shall report to the Court any agreement
they have reached on this matter and, in the absence of
agreement, they shall report to the Court their respective
positions and the arguments in support of their positions.
Upon receipt of such reports, the Court shall determine the
appropriate remedy for the prior discrimination in the filling
of purser vacancies.

19. INTEREST—With respect to all monies to be paid
under the foregoing provisions of this Order, the Company

1Sb

shall pay six percent intcrest per annum from the date the
violation occurred giving rise to said liability through the

date upon which payment is made in accordance with this
Order.

20. MECHANICS FOR PAYMENT PURSUANT TO
THIS ORDER—Counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for
the Company shall meet promptly following the signing of
this Order to establish procedures for determining the pre-
cise monetary amounts due to each employee pursuant to
the provisions of this Order. All costs incurred in making
Said determinations shall be borne by the Company. The
procedures adopted shall be such as to assure that payments
shall be made as soon as possible, but in no event more than
six months after this Order (unless the Court, for good
cause shown, extends said deadline with respect to particular
employees as to whom disputes have arisen concerning en-
titlement or computation). Any disputes as to entitlement or
computation which cannot be resolved by agreement of
counsel shall be referred to the Court for disposition.

21. IMPLEMENTATION—Counsel for the plaintiffs,
counsel for the Company and counsel for the Union shall be
responsible, for a period of two years following this Order,
to take such steps as may be necessary to assure compliance
with this Order, in accordance with the procedure described
in this paragraph. Any complaint by any employee or by
counsel for any party that the provisions of this Order have
been violated shall be discussed initially by counsel. If they
unanimously agree as to the correct disposition of a com-
plaint, they may effectuate said disposition without the need
for referring it to the Court, but shall maintain a written
record of said complaint and disposition. If they do not
unanimously agree as to the correct disposition of a com-

16b

plaint any one of them may refer the matter to the Court for
disposition. The Company shall pay all expenses incurred
by counsel in performing the functions assigned to them in
Paragraphs 20 and 21 of this Order, including the travel
expenses of plaintiffs’ attorneys and shall pay a reasonable
attorney’s fee to the plaintiffs’ attorneys for their services
therefor.

22. LITIGATION EXPENSES—The Company shall
reimburse plaintiffs for.all reasonable expenses incurred on
their behalf in litigating this actio

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_0156%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.