Atlas Air, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Association

Citation232 F.3d 218
Decision Date21 November 2000
Docket NumberNo. 99-7223,Consolidated with 99-7243.,99-7223
PartiesATLAS AIR, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Marcus C. Migliore argued the cause for appellant/cross-appellee. With him on the briefs were Jerry D. Anker and Jonathan A. Cohen. Marta Wagner entered an appearance.

Ronald B. Natalie argued the cause for appellee/cross-appellant. With him on the briefs was Douglas W. Hall.

Before: GINSBURG, SENTELLE and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SENTELLE.

SENTELLE, Circuit Judge:

The cockpit crewmembers employed by Appellee Atlas Air, Inc. elected to unionize, whereupon Atlas Air immediately terminated their participation in its profit-sharing plan. Atlas sought a declaratory judgment that its action was a legal modification of status quo employment conditions under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., and that Atlas was free to make further status quo changes pending the onset of collective bargaining. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) filed a cross-claim charging that Atlas Air's maintenance and execution of a discriminatory anti-union policy violates RLA Section 2, Third and Fourth. The district court granted summary judgment for Atlas Air on the grounds that the RLA does not require carriers to maintain status quo wages, work rules, or conditions of employment. See Atlas Air, Inc. v. ALPA, 69 F.Supp.2d 155, 159 (D.D.C. 1999). The court further held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Atlas's second claim because it was insufficiently concrete. See id. at 164. ALPA and Atlas each appeal. Because the RLA prohibits carriers from interfering with, coercing, or influencing employee decisions whether to unionize, we reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

I. Background
A.

Atlas Air, Inc. (Atlas) is a cargo airline. Of Atlas's approximately 1,100 employees, about half are cockpit crewmembers (pilots and flight engineers). In June 1994, Atlas announced a new compensation package which included profit-sharing. Under this plan, "eligible employees" would receive semiannual payments based upon the company's profits. To ensure that employees would receive additional income under the plan, Atlas set a minimum guaranteed payment of seven percent of annual pay. Under the plan, the definition of "eligible employee" excludes "those who are subject to a collective bargaining agreement or who have been certified by the National Mediation Board or any such other regulatory agency for representation." This provision was publicized to Atlas employees along with information about the rest of the plan's terms.

ALPA began efforts to organize cockpit crewmembers at Atlas Air perhaps as early as 1994. See Atlas, 69 F.Supp.2d at 159. These efforts intensified in 1996. On September 30, 1996, Atlas sent a letter to all of its employees providing a "straightforward explanation of the profit-sharing plan." A document enclosed with the letter outlined the eligibility rules and provided sample calculations of likely benefits from the plan. The document also provided an explanation for the eligibility rules, noting that the exclusion of unionized employees is "very common in unionized organizations where the compensation plans for unrepresented employees are kept separate from those of unionized employees."

On April 21, 1997, Atlas announced that it was revising the profit-sharing plan. In particular, for the next three years Atlas would guarantee eligible employees a minimum profit-sharing payment of 10 percent of annual pay, irrespective of profits (20 percent for captains). Atlas's announcement of the new plan, mailed to all crewmembers, noted that profit sharing would end "upon certification of a union" and that all employment rules and compensation provisions, including "existing and future wages and benefits" would "become subject to the collective bargaining process," if a union were certified.

ALPA filed its first application for a representation election for Atlas crewmembers in November 1997. Shortly thereafter, Atlas distributed a draft Flight Crew Policy Manual that outlined the profit-sharing eligibility rules. According to the manual, "profit sharing, including the guaranteed portion, ceases upon certification of a union." Draft Flight Crew Policy Manual at 21. The draft manual also included a chart illustrating the guaranteed minimum payments that employees could expect so long as they remained eligible for the profit-sharing plan. At the time, ALPA did not question the legality of the eligibility provision of Atlas's profit-sharing plan. ALPA lost the 1997 representation election. It did not, however, file any objections to the election related to the profit-sharing plan eligibility requirements or otherwise.

ALPA and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters each filed for a second election in February 1999. On February 17, Atlas sent a letter to all crewmembers explaining the potential consequences of unionization. While noting that employees have the right to choose union representation, it also stated that Atlas unilaterally could change the conditions of employment if a union were to be certified. In bold face type, the letter declared:

One area that will change if a union is certified is profit sharing. Our Profit Sharing Plan says clearly that employees who have been certified by the National Mediation Board for representation are not eligible for profit-sharing.... Of course, a union could choose to bargain for profit sharing in subsequent negotiations, but it could be years before any resolution is reached.
If a union is certified, you instantly lose your profit sharing. If anyone promises you that you can keep your profit-sharing should a union be certified — they're either seriously mistaken, or they're intentionally misleading you.

(Emphasis in original.) The letter further noted that "the loss of profit sharing could have a significant financial impact on you and your family" and included a chart detailing the likely impact of the plan's termination on the salaries earned by employees of varying levels of seniority.

In March, Atlas executives sent additional letters to crewmembers reiterating the consequences of union certification. According to one of the letters, Atlas wanted to ensure that crewmembers made "an informed decision about representation, based on the financial impact that choosing representation would have on you and your family." "So there is no misunderstanding," one of the letters explained, "a portion of your current paycheck will stop being paid if the NMB National Mediation Board certifies a union." The letter noted that all cockpit crewmembers stood to lose at least 10 percent of their annual pay should they lose eligibility. Given Atlas Air's substantial profits in recent years, the document noted the cost of unionization could be much higher.

Despite Atlas's letters, ALPA won the representation election held on April 26. Two days later, the NMB certified ALPA as the collective bargaining representative. Upon the announcement of the election results, but before the NMB certification, Atlas terminated the profit-sharing plan for cockpit crewmembers. The plan's termination reduced cockpit crewmembers' annual compensation by over 25 percent. The profit-sharing plan remained in place for Atlas employees without union representation. At the time this suit was instituted, Atlas and ALPA had yet to enter into any contract negotiations.

B.

On May 5, 1999, Atlas Air filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that its enforcement of the profit-sharing plan's eligibility requirements was lawful under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., and that under the RLA Atlas "retains the right to make unilateral changes in the rates of pay, rules and working conditions of its flight deck crewmembers while it negotiates the terms of an initial collective bargaining agreement with ALPA." Complaint at 1. ALPA filed a counterclaim asserting that the exclusionary provisions of the profit-sharing plan constituted unlawful interference with the right to organize under Section 2, Third and Fourth of the RLA. See 45 U.S.C. § 152, Third and Fourth. ALPA also contended that Atlas's request for a declaratory judgment that Atlas could make additional unilateral changes in working commitments was not ripe for adjudication or, in the alternative, that ALPA has the right under the RLA to respond to any such changes with a strike or other self-help actions. ALPA also moved for a preliminary injunction alleging that Atlas's "discriminatory conduct" was per se unlawful under federal labor law. Atlas responded with a motion to dismiss and ALPA filed a motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim.

On October 25, 1999, the district court entered summary judgment on behalf of Atlas, holding that the company did not violate the RLA by enforcing the eligibility provisions of the profit-sharing plan after ALPA was certified and before the start of negotiations. Although Atlas had not itself moved for summary judgment, the trial court entered summary judgment sua sponte because both parties' submissions made clear that there were no genuine issues of material fact in the case. Atlas, 69 F.Supp.2d at 158. The court held that the RLA "imposes no duty to maintain the status quo in a case such as this where a union has been certified, but collective bargaining negotiations have not commenced and there is no prior agreement between the parties." See id. at 164.

The court dismissed Atlas's second claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court agreed with ALPA that a declaratory judgment on the lawfulness of future, unspecified status quo changes under the RLA did not present a justiciable case or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Air Line Pilots v. Guilford Transp. Industries
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 28 Febrero 2005
    ...or unduly influencing employees' representational choices and from interfering with the right to unionize. Atlas Air, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 232 F.3d 218, 224 (D.C.Cir.2000). In contrast to other species of RLA cases, the courts have jurisdiction to decide certain questions concerni......
  • In re Northwest Airlines Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 29 Marzo 2007
    ...quo provisions to the parties' objective working conditions prior to their agreement to an initial CBA); Atlas Air, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 232 F.3d 218, 223 (D.C.Cir.2000) ("By their express terms, the[] so-called `status quo' provisions of the Act only prohibit unilateral changes i......
  • Atlas Air, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 5 Julio 2019
    ...Atlas’s September 2017 lawsuit was timely. RLA claims are subject to a six-month statute of limitations. Atlas Air, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n , 232 F.3d 218, 226 (D.C. Cir. 2000). If events in the six months leading up to the lawsuit are part of an ongoing slowdown campaign or would the......
  • Emory v. United Air Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 14 Agosto 2013
    ...claims without specific limitation provisions. See May, 129 F.3d at 177 (breach of duty of fair representation); Atlas Air, Inc. v. ALPA, 232 F.3d 218, 222 (D.C.Cir.2000) (discriminatory anti-union policies). Try as plaintiffs might to distinguish the present case as one in which there was ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Wait! Don't Fire That Blogger! What Limits Does Labor Law Impose on Employer Regulation of Employee Blogs?
    • United States
    • University of Washington School of Law Journal of Law, Technology & Arts No. 2-3, March 2007
    • Invalid date
    ...(1989); Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, 383 (1969); Atlas Air, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 232 F.3d 218, 225 (D.C. Cir. 2000). FN20. 29 U.S.C. § 152. FN21. NLRB v. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co., 167 F.2d 983, 988 (7th Cir. 1948). FN22. Meyer I......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT