BNSF Ry. Co. v. Internal Ass'n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transp. Workers - Transp. Div.

• Decision Date: 14 January 2022
• Docket Number: 21-cv-00432-P
• Parties: BNSF Railway Company, Plaintiff, v. International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers - Transportation Division,
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

BNSF Railway Company, Plaintiff, v. International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers - Transportation Division,

No. 21-cv-00432-P

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

January 14, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

MARK T. PITTMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

“It's deja vu all over again”-a railway company, a labor union, and of course, a dispute between the two.^[1] This case presents the oft-litigated issue of whether a particular conflict is either a “major” or “minor” dispute under the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”). Specifically, at issue is whether it is a major or minor dispute for Plaintiff BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”) to require its road-service employees to use company vehicles in the performance of their duties.

BNSF argues that the dispute is minor while Defendant International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers - Transportation Division (“SMART-TD”) argues that it is major. To those ends, the Parties filed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment seeking declaratory judgments adopting their respective positions. ECF Nos. 27, 30. As explained below, the Court will GRANT in part BNSF's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY SMART-TD's Motion for Summary Judgement.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

BNSF is a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce and headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. ECF No. 1; see also 45 U.S.C. 151 First (defining “carrier” under the RLA). And SMART-TD, formerly United Transportation Union, is the duly authorized representative of the crafts or classes of train-service employees employed by BNSF. ECF No 24; see also 45 U.S.C. 151 Sixth (defining “representative” labor organization under the RLA).

B. The Agreement

BNSF and SMART-TD have entered into several collective bargaining agreements governing the terms and conditions of employment for train-service employees. One such agreement is the “1985 National Agreement” (“National Agreement”).^[2] Relevant to the instant dispute is Article VIII of the National Agreement, which governs work requirements for both road and yard crews.^[3] Article VIII provides, in relevant part:

Section 1 - Road Crews

Road crews may perform the following work in connection with their own trains without additional compensation:

(a) Get or leave their train at any location within the initial and final terminals and handle their own switches. When a crew is required to report for duty or is relieved from duty at a point other than the on and off duty point fixed for that assignment and such point is not within reasonable walking distance of the on and off duty point, transportation will be provided.

Section 3 - Incidental Work

(a) Road and yard employees in ground service and qualified engine service employees may perform the following items of work in connection with their own assignments without additional compensation:

(1) Handle switches

(2) Move, turn and spot locomotives and cabooses

(3) Supply locomotives and cabooses except for heavy equipment and supplies generally placed on locomotives and cabooses by employees of other crafts

(4) Inspect cars

(5) Start or shutdown locomotives

(6) Bleed cars to be handled

(7) Make walking and rear-end air tests

(8) Prepare reports while under pay

(9) Use communication devices; copy and handle train orders clearances and/or other messages

(10) Any duties formerly performed by firemen.

(b) Road and yard employees in engine service and qualified ground service employees may perform the following items of work in connection with their won assignments without additional compensation:

(1) Handle switches

(2) Move, turn, spot and fuel locomotives

(3) Supply locomotives except for heavy equipment and supplies generally placed on locomotives by employees of other crafts

(4) Inspect locomotives

(5) Start or shutdown locomotives

(6) Make head-end air tests

(7) Prepare reports while under pay

(8) Use communication devices; copy and handle train orders clearances and/or other messages

(9) Any duties formerly performed by firemen.

Section 4 - Construction of Article

Nothing in this Article is intended to restrict any of the existing rights of a carrier.

ECF Nos. 29 at 12-14; 32 at 6-8.

C. The Dispute

The instant dispute began roughly three years ago when BNSF informed SMART-TD that it intended to start requiring certain union-represented employees to drive company vehicles in the performance of their duties. SMART-TD objected to the proposed driving policy, arguing that BNSF could not require union-represented employees to drive company vehicles under the National Agreement. To resolve these differences, the Parties exchanged draft proposals that, if agreed to, would have governed union-represented employees driving company vehicles in the performance of their duties. See ECF No. 32 at 15-16, 19-20. However, the negotiations were fruitless, and the Parties failed to reach an agreement. Nonetheless, BNSF implemented its plan requiring union-represented employees to drive company vehicles in the performance of their duties. To date, BNSF has been requiring union-represented employees to drive themselves to and from their trains in various locations.^[4] ECF Nos. 29 at 10; 32 at 4.

The Parties (unsurprisingly) disagree about how to classify this dispute regarding BNSF's contested driving policy. However, the Parties (surprisingly) disagree about what the instant dispute encompasses.

On one hand, BNSF's filings focus on both yard- and road-service employees-seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the Parties' dispute over whether train-service employees can be required to drive themselves to their work (rather than be chauffeured to and from those sites) is minor. See ECF No. 1.

On the other hand, SMART-TD's filings focus only on road-service employees-seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that requiring road-service employees to drive vehicles during the performance of their duties violates BNSF's obligations under the RLA. See ECF No. 24.

The Parties clarified this disagreement at the hearing on the CrossMotions for Summary Judgment.^[5] See ECF No. 40. Accordingly, based on the Parties' representations, the central issue is whether it is a major or minor dispute for BNSF to require its road-service employees to drive company vehicles in the performance of their duties.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 12, 2021, BNSF filed this civil action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against SMART-TD. ECF No. 1. BNSF then filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”) on March 16, 2021. ECF Nos. 7-8. Because there was no imminent threat of a strike, the Court denied the Motion. ECF No. 17. On June 7, 2021, SMART-TD answered the Complaint and asserted a counterclaim seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against BNSF. ECF No. 24. After failing to resolve their differences at mediation, the Parties filed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. See ECF Nos. 27, 30. The Court held a hearing on the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, see ECF No. 40, which are now ripe for review.

LEGAL STANDARD

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate where the movant demonstrates “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A genuine dispute of material fact exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); see also Bazan ex rel. Bazan v. Hidalgo Cnty., 246 F.3d 481, 489 (5th Cir. 2001) (“An issue is ‘genuine' if it is real and substantial, as opposed to merely formal, pretended, or a sham.”). To demonstrate an issue as to material facts, the nonmoving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). The nonmoving party must show sufficient evidence to resolve issues of material fact in its favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.

When evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 255. However, it is not incumbent upon the Court to comb through the record in search of evidence that creates a genuine issue as to a material fact. See Malacara v. Garber, 353 F.3d 393, 405 (5th Cir. 2003). The nonmoving party must cite the evidence in the record that establishes the existence of genuine issues as to the material facts. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). Finally, when parties file cross motions for summary judgment, the court “review[s] each party's motion independently, viewing the evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” See, e.g., Six Dimensions, Inc. v. Perficient, Inc., 969 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Green v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 754 F.3d 324, 329 (5th Cir. 2014)).

B. The Railway Labor Act

“[R]elations between railroads and their workers have often been stormy.” Burlington N. &Santa Fe Ry. Co. v Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps., 143 F.Supp.2d 672, 678 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (McBryde, J.). “As another judge noted, ‘the origins of this matter (as well as many other disputes) can probably be traced back prior to 1894 when Eugene V. Debs led members of the American Railway Union in a turbulent strike against the Pullman Palace Car Company of Illinois.'” Id. (quoting Alton &S. Ry. Co. v. Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps., 883 F.Supp. 755, 756 (D.D.C. 1995); see also 1 Harry S. Truman, Memoirs by Harry S. Truman: Year of Decisions 500-02 (1995) (discussing the “drastic measures” that might be necessary to quash...