1. TWA v. IFFA
No obligation on part of employer to place reinstated strikers in exact same situation in which they would have been but for the strike
Erie Resistor does not extend to all post-strike differences in ee status
Court views strike as a “gamble” for which strikers must accept the consequences
“rough and tumble” concept
strikers viewed as “gamblers”
crossovers viewed as “nongamblers”

2. TWA v. IFFA (continued)
Frames of Reference for Applying Precedent of Erie Resistor
Majority: Erie Resistor involves using seniority rights to discriminate; TWA does not involve a diminution of relative seniority rights; legal to maintain crossovers and strikers in domiciles
Dissent: Erie Resistor defines discrimination as existing when there are post-strike effects of self-help; there are post-strike effects in TWA and therefore TWA acted unlawfully

3. How is the Issue Framed?
Majority: “We decide today whether, at the end of a strike, an employer is required by the Railway Labor Act to displace employees who worked during the strike in order to reinstate striking employees with greater seniority.” (429. U.S. 428)
Dissent: “The issue in this case is whether under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) an employer, in allocating available jobs among members of a bargaining unit at the conclusion of a strike, may discriminate against full-term strikers by giving preference to employees who crossed the picket line to return to work before the strike was over.” (429 U.S. 444)