Allen v. CSX Transp., Inc., 92-5104
| Decision Date | 17 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-5104,92-5104 |
| Citation | 22 F.3d 1180 |
| Parties | 146 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2566, 306 U.S.App.D.C. 98, 128 Lab.Cas. P 11,099 Dave ALLEN, et al., Appellees, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Civil Action No. 90-03045.
Ronald M. Johnson, Washington, DC, argued the cause for the appellant. On brief was James D. Tomola, Jacksonville, FL.
Richard A. Allen, Washington, DC, argued the cause for the appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, SENTELLE and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON.
Appellees (Canadian Employees) are Canadian railway employees of CSX Transportation (CSX) who work exclusively in Canada. They petitioned the district court to set aside orders of the National Railway Adjustment Board (NRAB). The district court granted their motion for summary judgment and vacated the contested NRAB awards. Because we conclude that the district court was without subject matter jurisdiction, we reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the Canadian Employees' petition.
The Canadian Employees are represented by unions that have entered into collective bargaining agreements with CSX. The collective bargaining agreements include pay schedules providing that wages are to be paid in specific amounts designated by the dollar symbol of American currency, namely "$". The inclusion of the dollar symbol in the pay schedules forms the basis of the Canadian Employees' claim: that CSX's practice of paying them in Canadian currency constitutes a breach of their collective bargaining agreements because the pay schedules require that they be paid in American currency.
The Canadian Employees first brought their claim in a class action filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. See Rastall v. CSX Transp., Inc., 574 A.2d 271 (D.C.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1109, 111 S.Ct. 1018, 112 L.Ed.2d 1099 (1991). Shortly after the Canadian Employees filed suit in superior court, CSX asked the NRAB to determine whether its collective bargaining agreements with the eleven unions that represented Canadian railway employees required that the currency dispute be arbitrated. Nine of the eleven unions with Canadian members contested the NRAB's jurisdiction. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE) and the United Transportation Union (UTU), however, conceded the NRAB's jurisdiction and asked it to resolve the dispute. All of the Canadian Employees who are appellees in this action are represented by either BLE or UTU.
In both the BLE and the UTU proceedings, the initial arbitration panel could not decide whether the collective bargaining agreements required payment in United States currency. Therefore, under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Secs. 151 et seq., an independent referee was appointed to resolve the dispute. See 45 U.S.C. Sec. 153 First (l ). The referee issued identical opinions in the two cases, concluding that the Canadian Employees' claims were foreclosed by CSX's past practice of paying them with Canadian dollars unadjusted to the United States exchange rate.
The Canadian Employees petitioned the district court to set aside the NRAB's arbitration award on the ground that the NRAB lacked jurisdiction. They based their petition for review on section 153 First (q) of the RLA, which provides:
If any employee or group of employees, or any carrier, is aggrieved ... by any of the terms of an award or by the failure of the division to include certain items in such an award, then such employee or group of employees or carriers may file in any United States district court ... a petition for review of the division's order.
45 U.S.C. Sec. 153 First (q).
Both the Canadian Employees and CSX filed motions for summary judgment with the district court. The district court first rejected CSX's claim that the Canadian Employees lacked standing to challenge the NRAB award. It held that the Canadian Employees had standing under 45 U.S.C. Sec. 153 First (q) which grants railroad employees aggrieved by arbitration awards the right to challenge the awards in federal court. Notwithstanding its holding that the Canadian Employees are employees under the RLA for the purpose of standing, the district court concluded that they are not employees within the meaning of the RLA. Allen v. CSX Transp., Inc., 784 F.Supp. 906, 910 (D.D.C.1992). Accordingly, the court decided that the NRAB exceeded its jurisdiction when it arbitrated the currency dispute. The court granted the Canadian Employees' motion for summary judgment and vacated the NRAB arbitration awards. Id. at 912. CSX now appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment.
The RLA grants the district court jurisdiction over petitions for review of NRAB arbitration awards brought by employees as defined by the RLA. See 45 U.S.C. Sec. 153 First (q) (). The RLA defines "employee" as:
every person in the service of a carrier (subject to its continuing authority to supervise and direct the manner of rendition of its services) who performs any work defined as that of an employee or subordinate official in the orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission now in effect, and as the same may be amended or interpreted by orders hereafter entered by the Commission pursuant to the authority which is conferred upon it to enter orders amending or interpreting such existing orders
....
45 U.S.C. Sec. 151 Fifth. The ICC does not have jurisdiction of disputes involving transportation performed exclusively outside the United States. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 10501(a)(2). Accordingly, Canadian employees who work exclusively in Canada are not employees under the RLA. See Air Line Stewards & Stewardesses Ass'n Int'l v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 267 F.2d 170, 175 (8th Cir.) ("By its terms, [the RLA] fails to apply to employees who are hired and who perform services completely outside the United States...."), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 901, 80 S.Ct. 208, 4 L.Ed.2d 156 (1959); Rastall v. CSX Corp., 696 F.Supp. 683, 684 (D.D.C.1988) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loving v. Internal Revenue Serv., Civil Action No. 12–385(JEB).
...statutory construction that a word is presumed to have the same meaning in all subsections of the same statute.” Allen v. CSX Transp., Inc., 22 F.3d 1180, 1182 (D.C.Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Since § 330(a)(2) makes clear that the “practice” of these representatives is “a......
-
SW Gen., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
...statutory construction that a word is presumed to have the same meaning in all subsections of the same statute.” Allen v. CSX Transp., Inc., 22 F.3d 1180, 1182 (D.C.Cir.1994) (quotation marks omitted). Similarly, the Congress used the phrase “For purposes of” in subsection (c)(2), which sho......
-
Loving v. Internal Revenue Serv., Civil Action No. 12-385 (JEB)
...statutory construction that a word is presumed to have the same meaning in all subsections of the same statute." Allen v. CSX Transp., Inc., 22 F.3d 1180, 1182 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Since § 330(a)(2) makes clear that the "practice" of these representatives is ......
-
Del Commercial Prop. v. Comm'r of Internal Rev.
...in 6656(a), the same terms used in the same statute for the same purpose presumably have the same meaning. See Allen v. CSX Transp., Inc., 22 F.3d 1180, 1182 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Because the same terms are used 6651(a)(1) and 6656(a) to define the circumstances in which a taxpayer is not requi......
-
(PARTIAL) CLARITY: ELIMINATING THE CONFUSION ABOUT THE REGULATION OF THE "FACT" UAL BASES FOR EXPERT TESTIMONY UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE.
...Nicholson, 421 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2005); United States v. Balogun, 146 F.3d 141, 145-47 (2d Cir. 1998); Allen v. CSXTransp., Inc., 22 F.3d 1180, 1181-82 (D.C. Cir. 1994); S & M Inv. Co. v. Tahoe Reg'l Plan. Agency, 911 F.2d 324, 326, 328 (9th Cir. 1990); Jackson Purchase Med. Ct......