458 F.2d 354 (8th Cir. 1972), 71-1382, United Transp. Union v. Burlington Northern Inc.

Docket Nº71-1382.
Citation458 F.2d 354
Party NameUNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION, General Committee of Adjustment, Enginemen, Burlington Northern, Inc., Formerly Northern Pacific Railway Company, Appellee, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC., a Corporation, Appellant.
Case DateApril 13, 1972
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Page 354

458 F.2d 354 (8th Cir. 1972)

UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION, General Committee of Adjustment, Enginemen, Burlington Northern, Inc., Formerly Northern Pacific Railway Company, Appellee,

v.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC., a Corporation, Appellant.

No. 71-1382.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 13, 1972

Submitted Feb. 14, 1972.

Page 355

Barry McGrath, Anthony Kane, James R. Walker, St. Paul, Minn., for appellant.

Patrick J. Foley, Rerat, Crill, Foley & Boursier, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.

Before MATTHES, Chief Judge, and LAY and ROSS, Circuit Judges.

MATTHES, Chief Judge.

This action was provoked by the decision of Burlington Northern, Inc. [carrier] to alter the firemen assignments on dieselized engines on its Superior, Wisconsin-Minneapolis, Minnesota run to allow use of firemen only on turnaround service to comply with Wisconsin's full-crew-law. United Transportation Union [union] sought, inter alia, to enjoin this change in assignments. The district court, after hearing, granted a temporary injunction and the carrier appealed.

The factual antecedents of this case stem from the labor dispute beginning in 1959 when carriers nationwide sought to amend the National Diesel Agreement of 1950, which requires firemen on diesel and other non-fired engines. That dispute ultimately was resolved by compulsory arbitration imposed by Congress. Pub.Law 88-108, 77 Stat. 132. The Arbitration Board's award, called Award 282, 64-1 Arb. ¶ 8179, provided a carrier could list those firemen assignments on a particular seniority list that it desired to abolish, and the union could then veto abolition of 10% of those listed. Depending upon their seniority, firemen occupying positions listed and not vetoed would either retain employment with wages assured, or be terminated with ample severance pay. In the parlance which has since attached, assignments listed and not vetoed were "blanked" if immediately abolished, or "blankable" if occupied by a protected fireman with the run terminable at will.

In decisions which neither party here contests, Brotherhood L. F. & E. v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 143 U.S.App.D.C. 72, 442 F.2d 794 (1971); Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Akron & B. B. R. R. Co., 128 U.S.App.D.C. 59, 385 F.2d 581 (1967, 1968) cert. denied, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Bangor and Aroostock R. Co., 390 U.S. 923, 88 S.Ct. 851, 852, 856, 19 L.Ed.2d 983 (1968), the D.C. Circuit determined what effect is to be ascribed to Award 282 now that its Congressionally-imposed two-year lifespan has expired. The court held that the procedures for blanking assignments expired with Award 282, so that for any "new runs" created after its expiration the National Diesel Agreement remained applicable and required assignment of firemen. However, because the Railway Labor Act perpetuates working conditions until changes are bargained pursuant to its procedures, the court held that those assignments blanked or blankable during the award continued to be abolished unless the parties subsequently contracted

Page 356

to the contrary, and the fact that a fireman with tenure protected by Award 282 continued to fill a blankable assignment did not necessitate its refilling when that fireman's employment ceased. As a caveat to this latter view, however, the court said the Supreme Court's view in Chicago Rock Island 1 that Award 282 did not preempt state full-crew laws meant that blanking an assignment in a full-crew state had no effect and did not, as the carriers contended, abolish that assignment with abolition suspended until repeal of the law.

The Superior to Minneapolis run here in question was made blankable (listed and not vetoed) pursuant to Award 282 and it is manned by a manpower pool based at Superior. All the firemen have job and wage security emanating from the Award; thus the crux of this controversy is whether the carrier will be required to hire additional firemen.

The dispute arose when, beginning in 1966 after the expiration of Award 282 and continuing since then, the carrier seasonally altered the assignment of firemen so that in slack seasons firemen traverse the entire Superior-Minneapolis run, but in heavy seasons they make only turnaround service between Superior and the border town of Sandstone, Minnesota. This provides a fireman in Wisconsin, a full-crew state, and frees other firemen for additional, heavy-season runs.

On October 6, 1970, the union filed this suit and the carrier filed a submission of the case with the National...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 practice notes
  • 580 F.Supp. 1490 (E.D.Mo. 1984), 83-771C 1, Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. United Transp. Union General Committee of Adjustment
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Eastern District of Missouri
    • March 1, 1984
    ...Attendants v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 655 F.2d 155, 158-59 (8th Cir. 1981); United Transportation Union v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 458 F.2d 354, 357 (8th Cir. 1972); International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. v. Braniff International Airways, Inc., 437 F.2d 1272, 1274 (5th Cir. UTU......
  • 845 F.2d 451 (4th Cir. 1988), 87-2069, Dement v. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
    • April 26, 1988
    ...v. Penn Central Transportation Co., 571 F.2d 747, 756-57 (3d Cir.1977); United Transportation Union v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 458 F.2d 354, 356-57 (8th Cir.1972). Unlike major disputes, "minor" disputes under the RLA involve "either ... the meaning or proper application o......
  • 505 F.2d 542 (3rd Cir. 1974), 74-1122, United Transp. Union v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    • October 23, 1974
    ...of section 6 of the Act. 2 An injunction may be issued to protect that status quo. United Transp. Union v. Burlington-Northern, Inc.,458 F.2d 354, 357 (8th Cir. 1972). Thus, if the dispute in question is 'major,' the district court erred in not granting the injunction. After carefully consi......
  • 444 F.Supp. 838 (D.Minn. 1977), 4-77-CIV-191, Air Line Pilots Ass'n Intern. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit District of Minnesota
    • June 6, 1977
    ...is mandatory without any consideration of the relative equities involved. United Transportation Union v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 458 F.2d 354, 357 (8th Cir. 1972). If the dispute is minor, then a court should be guided by the usual equitable considerations attendant upon the grant or den......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
45 cases
  • 580 F.Supp. 1490 (E.D.Mo. 1984), 83-771C 1, Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. United Transp. Union General Committee of Adjustment
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Eastern District of Missouri
    • March 1, 1984
    ...Attendants v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 655 F.2d 155, 158-59 (8th Cir. 1981); United Transportation Union v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 458 F.2d 354, 357 (8th Cir. 1972); International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. v. Braniff International Airways, Inc., 437 F.2d 1272, 1274 (5th Cir. UTU......
  • 845 F.2d 451 (4th Cir. 1988), 87-2069, Dement v. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
    • April 26, 1988
    ...v. Penn Central Transportation Co., 571 F.2d 747, 756-57 (3d Cir.1977); United Transportation Union v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 458 F.2d 354, 356-57 (8th Cir.1972). Unlike major disputes, "minor" disputes under the RLA involve "either ... the meaning or proper application o......
  • 505 F.2d 542 (3rd Cir. 1974), 74-1122, United Transp. Union v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    • October 23, 1974
    ...of section 6 of the Act. 2 An injunction may be issued to protect that status quo. United Transp. Union v. Burlington-Northern, Inc.,458 F.2d 354, 357 (8th Cir. 1972). Thus, if the dispute in question is 'major,' the district court erred in not granting the injunction. After carefully consi......
  • 444 F.Supp. 838 (D.Minn. 1977), 4-77-CIV-191, Air Line Pilots Ass'n Intern. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit District of Minnesota
    • June 6, 1977
    ...is mandatory without any consideration of the relative equities involved. United Transportation Union v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 458 F.2d 354, 357 (8th Cir. 1972). If the dispute is minor, then a court should be guided by the usual equitable considerations attendant upon the grant or den......
  • Request a trial to view additional results