Kaschak v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

• Decision Date: 26 May 1983
• Docket Number: No. 81-3383,81-3383
• Citation: 707 F.2d 902
• Parties: 113 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2760, 97 Lab.Cas. P 10,175 Richard KASCHAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 902

707 F.2d 902

113 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2760, 97 Lab.Cas. P 10,175

Richard KASCHAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 81-3383.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 6, 1982.

Decided May 26, 1983.

Dennis Haines, Barry Laine (argued), Youngstown, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.

Thomas R. Skulina, Cleveland, Ohio, Dennis A. Arouca (argued), David S. Fortney, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant-appellee.

Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, JONES, Circuit Judge, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.

NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant, Richard Kaschak, appeals from an order of the district court dismissing the complaint against his employer, Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court found that the National Railroad Adjustment Board (the Board) had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute which gave rise to this action and, thus, that Kaschak's resort to the federal courts was improper. We find that, although the resolution of minor disputes generally lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board, the allegations in the instant complaint, if true, are sufficient to place this particular dispute within the bounds of federal jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we find it necessary to remand this cause to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. The district court must determine whether the appellant's failure to resort to the Board occurred through no fault of his own and despite every good faith effort to first invoke all contractual and administrative remedies. If that court finds that Kaschak was relying upon his union to process his grievance, that such reliance was reasonable in the circumstances and that it was that reliance which caused his failure to personally present his claim to the Board, the action against Conrail would then be properly cognizable in federal court.

I

The appellant filed this action against Conrail in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. Appellant's complaint indicates that he was employed by Conrail for some time. He claims that he was wrongfully discharged in July or August 1977 and that that discharge denied him certain employment rights and benefits, all in violation of the applicable bargaining agreement.

The United Transportation Union Local 1724 (the Union) was the appellant's collective bargaining representative. The appellant contends that he filed a timely request for grievance procedures in connection with his discharge, but that the Union failed to process that grievance in accordance with the time requirements of the bargaining agreement. The appellant asserts that, as a result of the Union's breach of the duty of fair representation, he lost the right to have his grievance processed before the Board.

Despite the charges of impropriety against both the Union and Conrail, this action was filed solely against Conrail for its alleged violation of the bargaining agreement. Conrail filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The district court declined to hear oral argument and, after consideration of the supporting papers, denied the motion. The court held that the Railway Labor Act (RLA) requirement that aggrieved employees resort to the Board for the resolution of their grievances, rather than the federal courts, is subject to certain exceptions. The court then noted that one such exception exists when an employee relies upon his union to prosecute his grievance and the union breaches its duty relating thereto.

Conrail filed a motion to reconsider the denial, primarily premised upon certain recent decisions of this Court. ¹ The district court then concluded that, even in the face of allegations of unfair representation on the part of the Union, the Board's jurisdiction remains exclusive. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss was granted by the trial judge. We disagree and find that the dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) was inappropriate. ²

II

Conrail is a rail carrier within the meaning of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq. ³ The employer-employee relationship in this case is thus necessarily governed by the provisions of that Act.

The RLA provides a framework for the settlement of disputes between an employee and a carrier which arise out of the interpretation or application of the collective bargaining agreement, commonly referred to as "minor disputes." Section 2 of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. Sec. 152, dictates a preference for the settlement of such disputes in accordance with the contractually agreed-upon grievance procedures. ⁴ If, however, the grievance cannot be so resolved, Sec. 3, 45 U.S.C. Sec. 153, specifically provides an alternate mechanism for doing so. 45 U.S.C. Sec. 153 First, (i) provides The disputes between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, including cases pending and unadjusted on the date of approval of this Act, shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes; but, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the dispute may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board with a full statement of the facts and all supporting data bearing upon the disputes.

The Supreme Court and this Circuit have interpreted this section as placing exclusive jurisdiction over minor dispute resolution in the hands of the Board. See Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad, 406 U.S. 320, 92 S.Ct. 1562, 32 L.Ed.2d 95 (1972); McKinney v. International Association of Machinists, 624 F.2d 745 (6th Cir.1980); Local 1477, United Transportation Union v. Baker, 482 F.2d 228 (6th Cir.1973). Accordingly, an employee may not forego resort to the Board and opt to have a dispute with a carrier considered, in the first instance, by a federal court. Where such a choice is made, a motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(1) must be sustained. See e.g. McKinney v. International Association of Machinists, supra.

Any controversy over the meaning of a collective bargaining agreement in a particular fact situation will be deemed a "minor dispute" for purposes of RLA dispute resolution. Id. The appellant specifically claims that his discharge was in violation of the collective bargaining agreement, placing an interpretation of that agreement at the heart of his complaint. The fact that he characterizes the claim as one for "wrongful discharge" does not alter its status as a minor dispute. Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad, supra. It appears, initially, that Kaschak's claim is necessarily subject to the requirement of submission to Board review.

III

While the appellant concedes that the above-stated principles regarding RLA dispute resolution generally hold true, he claims that the facts enumerated in his complaint fall outside the Board's jurisdiction over minor disputes. Kaschak contends that the allegations of unfair representation by the Union take his case out of that portion of the statutory scheme which commands resort to the Board. He argues that since he attempted to, but was foreclosed from, resort to the procedures contemplated by Sections 2 and 3 of the RLA, he may now maintain a legal action against Conrail for his wrongful discharge.

The appellant largely bases his argument upon Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967), and its progeny. There, in an action under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 141, et seq., the Supreme Court established the rule that:

... the wrongfully discharged employee may bring an action against his employer in the face of a defense based upon the failure to exhaust contractual remedies, provided the employee can prove that the union as bargaining agent breached its duty of fair representation in its handling of the employee's grievance.

386 U.S. at 185, 186, 87 S.Ct. at 914 (emphasis added). The appellant contends that this principle can, and should be, extended to actions under the RLA. Conrail disagrees.

Conrail contends that the Vaca line of cases, and the principle they establish, are inapplicable in the RLA context. Conrail points out that the LMRA and the RLA are distinct statutory schemes, with those covered by the latter being explicitly exempted from the provisions of the LMRA. More specifically, Conrail notes (1) that Sec. 301 of the LMRA explicitly creates a federal cause of action for employer-employee disputes, while the RLA contains no such provision, (2) the National Labor Relations Board is a body available for voluntary resort to arbitration (thereby waiving the right to first invoke Sec. 301) while the National Railroad Adjustment Board is a statutorily-created arbitration forum, and (3) unlike the LMRA, the RLA permits a grievant to personally seek redress through that arbitration process. It is Conrail's position that to allow Kaschak to pursue his grievance in court would be to impermissibly extend federal jurisdiction, to ignore the mandatory grievance features of the RLA and to blur the difference between the Acts.

The argument that a federal cause of action must be explicit within the four corners of the RLA before federal courts may resolve disputes arising thereunder is without merit. The Supreme Court has repeatedly addressed the issue and determined that the provisions of the RLA are more than mere exhortations to the parties, creating legal obligations enforceable by whatever means appropriate. See Chicago & N.W.R. Co. v. Transportation Union, 402 U.S. 570, 577, 91 S.Ct. 1731, 1735, 29 L.Ed.2d 187 (1970); Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v....