AIR LINE PILOTS ASS'N v. JETSTREAM INTERN.

• Decision Date: 26 June 1989
• Docket Number: Civ. No. B-88-2463.
• Citation: 716 F. Supp. 203
• Parties: AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, and Edward K. Quick v. JETSTREAM INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, INC., etc.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

716 F. Supp. 203

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, and Edward K. Quick v. JETSTREAM INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, INC., etc.

Civ. No. B-88-2463.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

June 26, 1989.

Jerry Anker and Elizabeth A. Ginsburg, Washington, D.C., and Bernard Rubenstein, Lutherville, Md., for plaintiffs.

Pamela J. White, Baltimore, Md., and E. Scott Smith, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.

WALTER E. BLACK, Jr., District Judge.

Plaintiffs Air Line Pilots Association, International ("ALPA") and Captain Edward K. Quick filed their complaint for injunctive and monetary relief against defendant Jetstream International Airlines, Inc. ("Jetstream"), alleging that Jetstream violated the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 184 and 152, and breached its contract with Quick.

In early 1987, ALPA, a labor organization which represents commercial airline pilots, began a campaign to organize the pilots employed by Jetstream. Quick, a pilot employed by Jetstream at the time, was an active and open supporter of ALPA's campaign. In April, 1988, after an election conducted by the National Mediation Board, ALPA was certified pursuant to the Railway Labor Act as the collective bargaining representative of the Jetstream pilots. After this election, Quick was designated as the interim Chairman of ALPA's local council at Dayton, Ohio. Subsequently, he was elected Chairman of the local council. Since ALPA's certification as collective bargaining representative, the parties have been unable to complete negotiations for their first collective bargaining agreement.

On June 29, 1988, Jetstream terminated Quick's employment. Plaintiffs contend that Quick was harassed and discharged because of his union activity. Jetstream alleges that he was discharged because he reported late for duty and used foul language. In July, 1988, ALPA sent a letter to Jetstream which, it alleges, constituted a "grievance" on behalf of Quick. ALPA requested that Jetstream agree to establish a System Board of Adjustment to hear and decide Quick's discharge grievance. Jetstream refused to establish a System Board of Adjustment to hear the grievance. Plaintiffs allege that this refusal violated § 204 of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 184.

Pending before the Court are cross motions for partial summary judgment filed by plaintiffs and defendant. These motions present the purely legal issue of whether the parties are obligated under 45 U.S.C. § 184 to establish a system board of adjustment where they have not yet entered into a collective bargaining agreement. No reported decision has directly addressed this issue.¹ After reviewing the statute, its legislative history, and related case law, this Court has determined that 45 U.S.C. § 184 creates no duty to establish a board of adjustment before the parties have entered into their first collective bargaining agreement.

Congress enacted the Railway Labor Act ("RLA") in 1926 in an effort to promote stable labor-management relations in the railroad industry. Air Line Pilots Association, Int'l v. Eastern Air Lines, 701 F.Supp. 865, 872 (D.D.C.1988). The RLA was extended in 1936 to cover the emerging air transportation industry. International Association of Machinists v. Central Airlines, Inc., 372 U.S. 682, 685, 83 S.Ct. 956, 958, 10 L.Ed.2d 67 (1963). All of the original provisions of the RLA were to apply to the air carriers, except § 3, 45 U.S.C. § 153, which established the National Railroad Adjustment Board. 45 U.S.C. § 181. Instead, Congress postponed the establishment of a National Air Transport Adjustment Board until such time as the National Mediation Board deemed it necessary to create a permanent national adjustment board. 45 U.S.C. § 185. Unless and until a national board is created, the parties are required to establish system, group, or regional boards of adjustment. Central Airlines, 372 U.S. at 686, 83 S.Ct. 959. 45 U.S.C. §§ 153, 184-185. These adjustment boards are to be composed of members selected by the air carriers and by the employees' representatives. Baylis v. Marriott Corp., 843 F.2d 658, 662 (2d Cir. 1988). The adjustment boards have jurisdiction over "minor" disputes, which are disputes "growing out of grievances, or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions...." 45 U.S.C. § 184; Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 723, 65 S.Ct. 1282, 1290, 89 L.Ed. 1886 (1945) (on rehearing 327 U.S. 661 (1946)). The decisions of these boards are final and are binding upon all parties involved in the dispute. 45 U.S.C. § 153. The arbitration procedures dictated by the RLA are mandatory, intended by Congress to keep these "minor" disputes out of the court system. Baylis, 843 F.2d at 662.

The RLA does not indicate when the duty to establish a system board of adjustment is triggered. The statute provides that "it shall be the duty of every carrier and of its employees, acting through their representatives ... to establish a board of adjustment of jurisdiction not exceeding the jurisdiction which may be lawfully exercised by system, group, or regional boards of adjustment, under the authority of section 153 of this title." 45 U.S.C. § 184. Pursuant to section 153, the jurisdiction of any such board "shall be defined in the agreement establishing it." Thus, the parties have the opportunity to bargain over the jurisdiction of the board, although the jurisdiction must be broad enough reasonably to effectuate the purposes of the RLA. Air Line Pilots Association, Int'l v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 863 F.2d 87, 91 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1988) (opportunity to bargain); Hearings before the Committee on Interstate Commerce, Senate: Railway Labor Act, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. on S.2306, reprinted in American Landmark Legislation: The Railway Labor Act of 1926 at 100-101 (jurisdiction must be reasonable). Requiring Jetstream to establish a system board to hear Quick's grievance may deprive the parties of their opportunity to bargain over certain aspects of their system board's jurisdiction. See Delta Air Lines, 863 F.2d at 91 n. 2. In any event, the most logical forum and time for this bargaining is during the collective bargaining process. Thus, typically, the machinery for boards of adjustment is generally contained within collective bargaining agreements or side agreements accompanying the collective bargaining agreement. See, e.g., id. at 89; Barnett v. United Air Lines, Inc., 738 F.2d 358, 361 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1087, 105 S.Ct. 594, 83 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984); Reed v. National Airlines, Inc., 524 F.2d 456, 458 (5th Cir. 1975).

Judicial opinions discussing which disputes are "minor" disputes within the jurisdiction of a system board shed some light on the issue of whether a collective bargaining agreement is a prerequisite to the duty to create a system board.² The majority of the judicial opinions reviewed by this Court imply or state that a "minor" dispute contemplates an existing collective bargaining agreement. Thus, the Supreme Court has stated that the RLA places the parties "under the statutory duty of establishing and utilizing system, group, or regional boards of adjustment for the purpose of adjusting and deciding disputes arising under existing contracts." Central Airlines, 372 U.S. at 686, 83 S.Ct. at 959 (emphasis added). See also Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Railway Labor Executives' Association, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 109 S.Ct. 2477, 2479, 105 L.Ed.2d 250 (1989); Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River and Indiana Railroad Co., 353 U.S. 30, 33, 77 S.Ct. 635, 636, 1 L.Ed.2d 622 (1957) (minor disputes are "controversies over the meaning of an existing collective bargaining agreement in a particular fact situation"); International Association of Machinists v. Eastern Air Lines, 847 F.2d 1014, 1017 (2d Cir.1988); Association of Flight Attendants v. Republic Airlines, Inc., 797 F.2d 352, 357 n. 2 (7th Cir.1986); Barnett, 738 F.2d at 361; Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada v. Norfolk and Western Railway Company, 745 F.2d 370, 374 (6th Cir.1984); Carbone v. Meserve, 645 F.2d 96, 98 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 859, 102 S.Ct. 312, 70 L.Ed.2d 156 (1981); Goclowski v. Penn Central Transportation Co., 571 F.2d 747, 754 n. 6 (3d Cir.1977); but see Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Eastern Air Lines, 863 F.2d 891 (D.C.Cir.1988); Arbogast v. CSX Corp., 655 F.Supp. 371, 372 (N.D.W.Va.), aff'd, 831 F.2d 290 (4th Cir.1987) (in federal preemption context). These cases evidence an understanding that the types of disputes which are generally submitted to system boards are those relating to the application or interpretation of collective bargaining agreements.

Plaintiffs assert, however, that the word "or" in the phrase "growing out of grievances, or out of the interpretation or application of agreements" implies that there are grievances not involving the application of collective bargaining agreements. Plaintiffs further contend that the duty of "every carrier and of its employees, acting through their representatives"³ to establish a board to hear all grievances is triggered by the certification of a union, not by the parties' first collective bargaining agreement. Although it may be true that some types of disputes within the jurisdiction of a system board may not be covered specifically by the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement,⁴ such an interpretation does not resolve the issue of whether an initial collective bargaining agreement is a prerequisite to the duty to establish a board of adjustment. Even those disputes that are not specifically covered by a collective bargaining agreement are generally viewed within the context of such an agreement underlying the employer-employee relationship. See, e.g., Railway Labor Executives Association v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co., 833 F.2d 700 (7th Cir. 1987).

In deciding whether a dispute is a "minor" one to be submitted to a...