Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l v. Trans States Airlines Llc
| Decision Date | 03 May 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 10–1700.,10–1700. |
| Citation | 638 F.3d 572 |
| Parties | AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL, Appellee,v.TRANS STATES AIRLINES, LLC, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Norman A. Quandt, argued, Atlanta, GA, David John Arthur Hayes, III, on the brief, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.James K. Lobsenz, argued, Herndon, VA, Marcus Charles Migliore, on the brief, Washington, DC, for appellee.Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BEAM and BENTON, Circuit Judges.RILEY, Chief Judge.
Trans State Airlines, LLC (TSA) appeals the district court's 1 grant of summary judgment to Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA) enforcing an arbitrator's award of backpay to pilot Captain Paul Hopkins after TSA fired him. TSA contends the award violates the public policy against large loans to union officials embodied in the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 401– 531. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
TSA is a “common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce” within the meaning of 45 U.S.C. § 181 of the Railway Labor Act (RLA). ALPA is an unincorporated labor organization representing commercial pilots, within the meaning of 45 U.S.C. §§ 151, Sixth, and 181 of the RLA. ALPA represents TSA's pilots, including Hopkins.
TSA and ALPA are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which provides for a System Board of Adjustment (Board) to resolve grievances. The Board has jurisdiction over disputes arising from grievances as well as the interpretation and application of the CBA.
Hopkins was a TSA pilot from July 13, 1998 until March 16, 2005, when TSA fired him for misuse, abuse, and participation in the falsification of an employee pass travel ticket. On March 18, 2005, ALPA filed a grievance with TSA under Section 20 of the CBA, contending Hopkins's termination was without just cause. When TSA denied the grievance, ALPA submitted the grievance for arbitration before the Board.
In April 2005, while Hopkins's grievance was pending, ALPA's Executive Council concluded TSA terminated Hopkins for his union activity. Hopkins served as chairman of ALPA's Local Executive Committee and as a captain representative for most of the time relevant to the award. Pursuant to Section 60.M.5 of ALPA's Administrative Manual, which authorizes payments to union officials who have been suspended or discharged because of authorized union activities, the Executive Council approved payment to Hopkins for 85 hours of “flight pay loss” per month. Between March 2005 and November 2007, ALPA paid Hopkins $161,798.87.
Section 60.M.5 provides that monies received by a discharged member from his carrier as a result of a grievance decision shall be repaid to ALPA. Before the Board, TSA argued the payments to Hopkins were a loan to a union officer in excess of $2,000 in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 503(a). The Board rejected TSA's argument because it concluded Section 60 did not obligate Hopkins to repay ALPA unless he received a make-whole remedy from TSA.
On May 8, 2006, the Board sustained Hopkins's grievance, and ordered TSA to reinstate Hopkins and pay his lost wages and benefits with interest. TSA refused to comply. On June 5, 2006, ALPA filed this action in the district court, seeking to enforce the award. TSA filed a counterclaim to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction and the award contained factual errors and violated public policy.
On September 25, 2007, the district court ordered TSA to reinstate Hopkins with backpay as determined by the Board. The district court retained jurisdiction to ensure compliance with its judgment. After the district court's decision, TSA offered to reinstate Hopkins, but Hopkins declined.
On December 11, 2007 and February 22, 2008, the Board held hearings to determine the amount of backpay and benefits to award Hopkins. At the hearings, TSA reasserted its position that the Section 60 payments were an illegal loan in violation of the LMRDA. On December 1, 2008, the Board again rejected TSA's argument—ultimately awarding Hopkins $162,249.56 plus interest.
TSA moved the district court for summary judgment with respect to Hopkins's award, arguing enforcement would cause a criminal violation of the LMRDA. ALPA filed a cross-motion to enforce the award and seeking sanctions. On February 25, 2010, the district court denied TSA's motion and granted ALPA's motion in part, ordering TSA to pay the award, but denying sanctions. TSA appeals.
II. DISCUSSIONA. Standing
ALPA contends TSA lacks standing to challenge Hopkins's award on public policy grounds. To satisfy the standing requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution, TSA must demonstrate it “suffered an ‘injury in fact,’ ” that is “fairly traceable to the challenged action,” and “redressable by a favorable decision.” Jewell v. United States, 548 F.3d 1168, 1172 (8th Cir.2008) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)).
TSA contends “[e]nforcing the [d]istrict [c]ourt's Order will cause the ALPA/Hopkins financial arrangement to ripen into one that is plainly unlawful under the LMRDA.” According to TSA, Hopkins's award “effectively orders TSA to participate in an illegal act”—an injury traceable to the district court's enforcement of the award, and fully redressable by an order vacating the award. We agree with TSA that its public policy challenge to Hopkins's award satisfies the standing requirement of Article III.
“In addition to the immutable requirements of Article III, ‘the federal judiciary has also adhered to a set of prudential principles that bear on the question of standing.’ ” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 162, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997) (quoting Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Sep. of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982)). One such requirement is the doctrine “that a plaintiff's grievance must arguably fall within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statutory provision ... invoked in the suit.” Id. “Whether a plaintiff's interest is arguably ... protected ... by the statute within the meaning of the zone-of-interests test is to be determined not by reference to the overall purpose of the Act in question ... but by reference to the particular provision of law upon which the plaintiff relies.” Id. at 175–76, 117 S.Ct. 1154 (quoting Ass'n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970)).
In cases where the plaintiff is not itself the subject of the contested regulatory action, the [zone-of-interest] test denies a right of review if the plaintiff's interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed that Congress intended to permit the suit. The test is not meant to be especially demanding; in particular, there need be no indication of congressional purpose to benefit the would-be plaintiff.
Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass'n, 479 U.S. 388, 399–400, 107 S.Ct. 750, 93 L.Ed.2d 757 (1987) (footnote omitted). “[T]he salient consideration ... is whether the challenger's interests are such that they ‘in practice can be expected to police the interests that the statute protects.’ ” Amgen, Inc. v. Smith, 357 F.3d 103, 109 (D.C.Cir.2004) (quoting Mova Pharm. Corp. v. Shalala, 140 F.3d 1060, 1075 (D.C.Cir.1998)).
Section 503(a) provides
No labor organization shall make directly or indirectly any loan or loans to any officer or employee of such organization which results in a total indebtedness on the part of such officer or employee to the labor organization in excess of $2,000.
ALPA argues TSA's claims fall outside the zone of interests protected by § 503(a) because “[§ ] 503(a) applies to unions and their members, not to employers.” In response, TSA emphasizes Congress enacted the LMRDA, in part, to ensure “labor organizations, employers and their officials adhere to the highest standards of responsibility and ethical conduct in administering the affairs of their organizations” and “to eliminate or prevent improper practices on the part of labor organizations, employers ... and their officers and representatives which distort and defeat the policies of the ... [RLA].” 29 U.S.C. § 401(a), (c).
Section 503(a) does not specifically authorize an action by an employer asserting it is being compelled to repay an illegal loan, but TSA's claims are not so marginally related to or inconsistent with the purposes implicit in the statute that it cannot reasonably be assumed Congress intended to permit TSA's suit. The LMRDA is “broad in its reach” and application. Johnson v. Nelson, 325 F.2d 646, 650 (8th Cir.1963). “The legislative history of the [LMRDA] demonstrates that Congress intended that it should not be interpreted by the courts narrowly or strictly.” Id. See also United States v. Goad, 490 F.2d 1158, 1162 (8th Cir.1974) ().
Assuming ALPA's payments to Hopkins constitute an illegal loan, TSA, through the award, becomes an indirect means of repaying Hopkins's debt. Though TSA's public policy challenge serves TSA's pecuniary interest, it also upholds the statutory purpose of preventing improper loans to union officials. By its involuntary involvement in what it argues is an illegal transaction between ALPA and its officers, TSA is in a unique position to police the interests § 503(a) protects. Because TSA's interests are congruent with the purposes of § 503(a), TSA has standing to pursue this appeal.
B. Standards of Review
“We apply ‘ordinary, not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Cnty. of Cook v. Wells Fargo & Co.
- Cook Cnty. v. McAleenan
- Friends of Trumbull v. Chi. Bd. of Educ.
- Hoskins v. Hoskins