Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs & Trainmen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-50544 |
| Parties | BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND TRAINMEN, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant—Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Dimitre James Petroff, Joshua McInerney, Wentz, McInerney, Peifer & Petroff, L.L.C., Powell, OH, James Roddy Tanner, Esq., Tanner & Associates, P.C., Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff—Appellee.
Robert S. Hawkins, Andrew J. Rolfes, Cozen O'Connor, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Oscar Arnulfo Lara, Carlos Rincon, Rincon Law Group, P.C., El Paso, TX, for Defendant—Appellant.
Donald James Munro, Esq., Jones Day, Washington, DC, Michael Maratto, National Railway Labor Conference, Arlington, VA, for Amicus Curiae National Railway Labor Conference.
Before Dennis, Higginson, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
The Railway Labor Act divests federal courts of jurisdiction over minor disputes between rail carriers and their employees. Most claims challenging employee discipline qualify as minor disputes that must be routed through arbitration. But there are exceptions. One is that the Act gives federal courts the authority to remedy carrier conduct motivated by antiunion animus. The district court found that this was such a case, preliminarily enjoining the railroad's suspension of six union members—including all five actively-employed officers of the union's local division—over a fistfight at an offsite union meeting. Our primary question is whether the animus exception gave the district court jurisdiction to intervene.
Union Pacific is a national rail carrier operating in the western half of the United States. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen is a labor union representing over 5,000 Union Pacific engineers. The union is made up of a number of local units or "divisions." Each provides representation to union members in its area. Elected representatives from each division also serve on general committees, which together negotiate collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with carriers like Union Pacific.
Division 192 is the exclusive representative for Union Pacific employees in and around El Paso. During early 2021, tension arose within the division over the union's stance on "shoves." Engineers take shoves when they accept extra shifts at the request of the railroad. The CBA does not prohibit shoves, but the union views them as a safety risk and has asked its members to decline them. Not all of the division's members complied. One engineer in particular, David Cisneros, continued taking shoves. Two Division 192 officers—Local Chairman Peter Shepard and Vice Local Chairman Joe Reyes—confronted Cisneros about his behavior via text message and the division's Facebook page.
Mounting tensions ultimately erupted into an off-duty fist fight before a union meeting. Details about the fight are disputed but the record largely establishes the following.1
On March 9, 2021, Division 192 held a routine union meeting at a local restaurant. Cisneros arrived at the restaurant a half hour before the start time. A number of the division's officers, including Shepard and Reyes, had already arrived and were chatting in the parking lot. Cisneros approached Reyes and struck him repeatedly until he fell to the ground. Shepard and other division members attempted to separate the parties and a shouting match ensued. In the tumult, Cisneros crossed back over to Reyes, who had just risen to his feet, and punched him until he collapsed again. The two were finally separated and the union meeting took place without Cisneros or Reyes.
Almost two months later, on May 5, Cisneros filed a complaint with Union Pacific, alleging that he had been threatened and physically assaulted by Shepard and Reyes in retaliation for taking extra shifts. A company supervisor met with Cisneros about the incident and took statements from only two other employees: Jason Barnett and Mark Fraire. Barnett wrote that he had witnessed part of the altercation at the union meeting and helped to diffuse the situation. Fraire was not present for the fight but said that he also took shoves and had been subject to similar harassment by Reyes.
About a week later, Union Pacific indefinitely suspended Shepard and Reyes without pay. It also suspended three other officers of Division 192 and one more union member. Cisneros's initial report to Union Pacific did not allege that those four were directly involved in the fight, and it appears they were simply bystanders. Union Pacific did not take statements from any of the suspended union members before disciplining them.
Notices of Investigations issued to all six individuals, telling them that they would be subject to disciplinary proceedings that could result in termination. Shepard and Reyes were charged with violating two Union Pacific policies: Item 10-I (forbidding "Violence & Abusive Behavior in the Workplace") and Rule 1.6 (forbidding "Discourteous," "Immoral," and "Quarrelsome" behavior). The bystanders were charged with violating Rule 1.6—in their case, for "fail[ing] to take any action" to stop the fight or "report the incident" to management.
Cisneros was not suspended or issued a notice, even though it is Union Pacific's policy to discipline every participant in a physical altercation. Union Pacific also declined to discipline Barnett, who gave a statement in support of Cisneros's claim, although he had not made any earlier efforts to report the incident.
The suspension of six union members—five of whom held office—effectively barred all of Division 192's leadership from Union Pacific's premises.2 The suspended officers later testified that this damaged Division 192 because they could not perform most duties remotely.
Within days of the suspensions, the union sued Union Pacific in federal court. It alleged that Union Pacific was retaliating against the union for its shove policy by debilitating the union officers who sought to enforce it. This retaliation, the union argued, violated the section of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) that prohibits carrier interference with union activity. The union sought injunctive relief requiring Union Pacific to end its investigation of the suspended employees and ordering their return to work. Union Pacific responded with a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute needed to be arbitrated.
The district court held a preliminary injunction hearing. The union introduced the testimony of two suspended union members and the General Chairman of its western territory, as well as a number of documents. Union Pacific offered, among other things, the testimony of Cisneros and two Union Pacific supervisors involved in the disciplinary action. The day after the hearing, the court granted a preliminary injunction, finding a "strong likelihood" the union would prevail in showing that Union Pacific violated the RLA.
Union Pacific immediately appealed the injunction and unsuccessfully sought a stay in this court.
Meanwhile, the district court denied Union Pacific's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. It acknowledged that the RLA precludes federal jurisdiction over minor disputes between carriers and their employees. But it concluded that Union Pacific had used its disciplinary proceedings "as pretext for undermining" the union. The case thus presented, in the court's view, an "exceptional circumstance" of antiunion animus in which federal court jurisdiction exists.
The first question is whether the district court had jurisdiction. See Jefferson Cmty. Health Care Ctrs., Inc. v. Jefferson Par. Gov't , 849 F.3d 615, 621 (5th Cir. 2017) ().
Congress enacted the RLA to minimize disruptions to railway service caused by labor disputes. See Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris , 512 U.S. 246, 252, 114 S.Ct. 2239, 129 L.Ed.2d 203 (1994). The Act establishes distinct procedures for resolving "major" and "minor" disputes between carriers and their employees. Id. at 252–53, 114 S.Ct. 2239. "Major disputes," which relate to the collective bargaining process, give rise to federal court jurisdiction. See Conrail v. Railway Labor Executives' Association , 491 U.S. 299, 302–03 , 109 S.Ct. 2477, 105 L.Ed.2d 250 (1989) ; see also Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co. v. Burley , 325 U.S. 711, 723, 65 S.Ct. 1282, 89 L.Ed. 1886 (1945) (). On the other hand, most "minor disputes" or grievances must be arbitrated before administrative bodies called Adjustment Boards. Conrail , 491 U.S. at 303–04, 109 S.Ct. 2477. Minor disputes typically involve "the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions." Conrail , 491 U.S. at 303, 109 S.Ct. 2477. The "distinguishing feature" of a minor dispute is that it "may be conclusively resolved by interpreting the existing agreement." Id. at 305, 109 S.Ct. 2477.
Not all disputes that might be governed by an existing CBA require arbitration. Federal courts sometimes have a role, such as when carriers act out of "anti-union animus." Association of Professional Flight Attendants v. Am. Airlines, Inc. , 843 F.2d 209, 211 (5th Cir. 1988) ; Douglas Hall et al., THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT , § 5.III.A (4th ed. 2016) ( that, once a CBA is in place, "courts exercise jurisdiction principally to address claims that carrier actions reflect antiunion animus or undermine the effective functioning of the union or cannot be adequately remedied by administrative means"). The animus exception encompasses direct attacks on the union, as well as more clandestine attempts to punish employees for their union associations. See, e.g. , Air Line Pilots Association, International v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc. , 817 F.2d 510, 515–17 (9th Cir. 1987) ()...
To continue reading
Request your trial