Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Portland Terminal R. Co.
| Citation | 860 F.2d 1088 |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-4370,87-4370 |
| Parties | Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PORTLAND TERMINAL RAILROAD COMPANY and Burlington Northern Railroad Company, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Before GOODWIN, ALARCON and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellant Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers ("BLE") appeals from the order of the district court granting summary judgment to defendants-appellees Portland Terminal Railroad Company ("PTRC") and Burlington Northern Railroad Company ("BN"). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
PRTC is a terminal company owned in part by BN. Terminal companies perform "interchange functions," i.e. they transfer rail cargo from one railroad to another where their lines intersect.
On January 3, 1984, BLE served a notice on PTRC under section 6 of the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. Sec. 156 (1982), requesting that PTRC confer with it over proposals, inter alia, that BLE engineers be given job security and the exclusive right to perform engineering services at PTRC. The parties agreed that these proposals should be handled on a national level. They referred the proposals to the National Mediation Board (NMB) for binding arbitration.
On December 19, 1985, the parties reached a tentative moratorium agreement whereby they agreed to refrain until April 1, 1988 from filing any new notices under section 6 of the RLA with respect to issues raised in BLE's January 3, 1984 section 6 notice. The NMB confirmed this moratorium agreement in an arbitral award dated May 19, 1986.
In 1985, BLE became concerned that certain changes in interchange procedures at PTRC would ultimately lead to the elimination of engineering jobs. The district court described the changes at PTRC as follows:
In 1985, BN leased a portion of ... [PTRC's] yard and constructed two new tracks specially designed to take advantage of containerization. The new tracks were constructed so that containers could be switched from a car on one track to a car on the other without having to switch cars. Although this change requires a minimal change in operation, i.e., dropping the cars off at the new tracks, it eliminates the interchange function of the terminal. Hence, the change threatens the jobs of terminal employees.
On February 4 and 5, 1986, BLE filed notices under section 6 requesting that PTRC and BN confer with it over proposals that no engineering position at PTRC be eliminated and exclusive rights to perform certain tasks at PTRC be given to BLE engineers. PTRC and BN refused to confer with BLE arguing, inter alia, that these section 6 notices were barred by the December 19, 1985 moratorium agreement.
On October 14, 1986, PTRC and BN sought a determination by the National Railroad Adjustment Board ("NRAB") that the moratorium agreement barred the February 1986 section 6 notices. The NRAB sent a notice to BLE instructing it to file an answer by November 21, 1986. BLE filed a timely request for an extension of time to file an answer but it was not received by the NRAB. On March 12, 1987, the NRAB issued an award in PTRC and BN's favor holding:
On October 14, 1986, ... [PTRC and BN] forwarded a Claim to the First Division National Railroad Adjustment Board, contending that ... [BLE's] Section 6 Notices of February 4 and 5, 1986 were barred and withdrawn by a moratorium provision of the May 19, 1986 BLE National Agreement. [BLE] ... failed to file an answering Submission, as required. Given ... [BLE's] failure to file a Submission, this Board is compelled to sustain the case based on the Submission before it.
Award Claim Sustained.
On October 10, 1987, BLE filed this action in the district court seeking, inter alia, to enjoin PTRC and BN from altering the status quo at PTRC and "to cease and desist in ... [their] refusal to confer and negotiate over the ... section 6 notices of February 4 and 5, 1986." BLE also sought to have set aside the March 12, 1987 arbitration award on due process grounds.
The district court granted summary judgment to PTRC and BN with respect to both claims. The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin PTRC and BN from refusing to bargain over the February 1986 section 6 notices because the dispute between the parties was an "omitted case minor dispute" under the RLA. The district court refused to set aside the arbitral award holding that "the Supreme Court in Union P. R.R. Co. v. Sheehan, 439 U.S. 89 (1978) foreclosed such review."
Coverdell v. Department of Social and Health Serv., 834 F.2d 758, 761 (9th Cir.1987) (citation omitted).
"Whether a dispute constitutes a major dispute or a minor dispute under the RLA is a matter of law which we review de novo." Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng'rs v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 838 F.2d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir.1988); accord IAM v. Aloha Airlines, Inc., 776 F.2d 812, 815 (9th Cir.1985).
"Under the Railway Labor Act, all disputes between railroads and their employees are either 'major disputes' or 'minor disputes.' " Brotherhood of Locomotive Engrs, 838 F.2d at 1090. Id. (citations omitted).
Major disputes are settled by "noncompulsory adjustment." Id. The parties must maintain the status quo pending exhaustion of the noncompulsory adjustment process. "The duty to maintain the status quo may be enforced by obtaining injunctive relief in a federal district court." Id. at 1091. Minor disputes are settled by "compulsory and binding arbitration." Id. "[F]ederal courts have no subject matter jurisdiction over minor disputes." Id.
"The test in our circuit for determining whether a dispute involves only the interpretation or application of an existing agreement (and is therefore minor) or involves the formation of a collective agreement or a unilateral effort to change working conditions (and is therefore major) ... is whether the railroad's actions are 'arguably justified' by the collective agreement." Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). A dispute which is "arguably" premature in light of a moratorium agreement is also a minor dispute under the RLA. St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co. v. United Transp. Union, 646 F.2d 230, 233 (5th Cir.1981); International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Toledo Lakefront Dock & Pellet Co., 776 F.2d 1341, 1344 (6th Cir.1985).
"The [arguably justified] test is not a stringent one." O'Donnell v. Wein Air Alaska, Inc., 551 F.2d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir.1975). "When in doubt, courts construe disputes as minor." Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 838 F.2d at 1091. However, the "major-minor dispute dichotomy does not relate to artfully contrived formalistic demands or responses but to matters of substance." Switchmen's Union v. Southern P. Co., 398 F.2d 443, 447 (9th Cir.1968).
In the December 18, 1985 moratorium agreement, the parties agreed to refrain until April 1, 1988 from filing new notices under section 6 with respect to issues "specifically dealt with" in BLE's January 3, 1984 section 6 notice. In its January 3, 1984 notice, BLE sought, inter alia, "guaranteed employment" for its workers, and the exclusive right of engineers to perform engineering work.
In its February 4 and 5, 1986 notices under section 6, BLE proposed that "[n]o position in existence on the Portland Terminal Railroad Company will be abolished ..."; that "[l]ocomotive [e]ngineers ... shall have the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to perform all engineer's work" at PTRC; and that these exclusive rights continue "[i]n the event the Carrier sells any or all of its trackage to another railroad...."
PTRC and BN contend that the moratorium agreement arguably barred BLE from filing the February 4 and 5, 1986 section 6 notices. We agree. BLE's January 3, 1984 proposal for guaranteed employment for engineers is arguably identical to its February 4 and 5, 1986 proposals that no engineering positions at PTRC be eliminated. Both proposals sought job security for BLE engineers. BLE's January 3, 1984 proposal that only engineers perform engineering work was arguably identical to its February 4 and 5, 1986 proposals that engineers have the exclusive right to perform engineering work. Both proposals sought to preserve traditional engineering tasks for BLE's engineers.
Since the 1984 and 1986 proposals were arguably identical, the 1986 proposals were arguably barred by the moratorium agreement. Accordingly, the dispute was minor and the district court did not err in granting the summary judgment motion of PTRC and BN. St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co., 646 F.2d at 233.
BLE contends that the alteration of the interchange procedures at PTRC was not arguably justified by the collective agreement. BLE argues that an implied-in-fact term of the collective bargaining agreement required that PTRC preserve jobs for BLE engineers. BLE contends that PTRC and BN sought to change this implied term by leasing PTRC track to BN and thereby allowing BN employees to perform work traditionally done by PTRC engineers.
In response, PTRC and BN cite several provisions of the collective agreement which they claim arguably permitted them to alter interchange procedures, including a 1972 amendment to the original collective bargaining agreement. The 1972 amendment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Csx Transp., Inc. v. United Transp. Union
... ... "a unilateral change in working conditions," Brotherhood Railway Carmen v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co., 745 F.2d ... 2. See, e.g., Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs v. Portland Terminal R.R. Co., 860 F.2d 1088 (9th ... ...