Bnsf Ry. Co. v. United Transp. Union

Decision Date03 November 2006
Docket NumberCivil Action No. G-05-333.
Citation462 F.Supp.2d 746
PartiesBNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

Douglas W. Poole, Galveston, TX, for Plaintiffs/Defendant.

Ralph J. Moore, Morgan Lewis et al, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Clinton J. Miller, III, Attorney at Law, Cleveland, OH, Michael H. Hennen, Provost Umphrey Law Firm LLP, Friendswood, TX, for Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

KENT, District Judge.

Plaintiffs BNSF Railway Company, CSX Transportation, Inc., Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, and Union Pacific Railroad Company ("the Railroads") bring this action against Defendant United Transportation Union ("UTU") seeking a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, and requesting injunctive relief requiring UTU to provide notice at least seventy-two hours prior to engaging in a strike or other self-help during the current round of national bargaining. The Railroads also request that UTU prevent and discourage self-help without at least a seventy-two hour notice to the Railroads. The Railroads filed their Motion for Summary Judgment, to which UTU timely responded. The Railroads then filed a Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. UTU likewise filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, to which the Railroads timely responded. UTU then fled a Reply to Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated below, the Railroads' Motion for Summary Judgment is respectfully DENIED, and UTU's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

I. Background

The Railroads are participants in the National Carriers' Conference Committee (NCCC), which represents the Railroads, as a multi-employer group, in their bargaining with UTU. This process is known as "national handling." UTU is the collective bargaining representative for certain railroad employees engaged in the operation of trains, including conductors and brakemen. Currently, NCCC is engaged in negotiations with UTU regarding proposed changes to the Parties' Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs).

A. The Strife over the Proposed Changes to the CBAs

On November 4, 2004, the Railroads and UTU served notices to each other proposing changes to their existing CBAs. The service of such a notice is a requirement under § 6 of the Railway Labor Act and symbolizes the initiation of "major dispute" resolution procedures. The parties met in February and March 2005 to confer about the proposed changes. The Railroads have proposed to either alter existing crew size agreements or, in the alternative, reduce wages. UTU concedes it is strongly opposed to this proposal. UTU terminated the March bargaining session after a "heated exchange" between UTU's president and the Railroad's chief negotiator regarding the crew size and wage reduction proposal. UTU filed a lawsuit the following day seeking to have the Railroads' proposal declared invalid. See United Transp. .Union v. Alton & S. Ry. Co., No. 05-190-GPM, 2006 WL 664181 (S.D.Ill. Mar.10, 2006).

On April 25,2005, the NCCC invoked mediation by the National Mediation Board pursuant to § 5 of the Railway Labor Act. See 45 U.S.C. § 155 (2000). On May 9, 2005, UTU suggested to the National Mediation Board that mediation of the dispute was not appropriate until after the litigation regarding the crew size and wage reduction proposal was resolved. However, on May 16, 2005, the National Mediation Board determined that the pending litigation did not provide a sufficient basis to refrain from mediation of the dispute, and it assigned a mediator on May 25, 2005. The case is currently before the National Mediation Board.

On March 10, 2006, the District Court for the Southern District of Illinois held that UTU was not required to bargain nationally over the crew size issue; however, the court found that the wage reduction proposal was "appropriately in national handling." Alton & S. Ry. Co., No. 05-190-GPM, 2006 WL 664181 at *5. The Railroads responded to the decision by requesting that UTU engage in "voluntary negotiations over crew size." (Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. 9.) If UTU does not agree to the proposed crew size reductions, the Railroads propose a wage freeze for current UTU-represented employees and a wage reduction of 20% for employees hired subsequent to the date a CBA is signed. Thus, despite the Illinois District Court's ruling that UTU does not have to engage in national bargaining over crew size, the Railroads have tied their crew size proposal to their wage reduction proposal in such a way that UTU likely will be unable to reach an agreement with the Railroads without "voluntarily" negotiating nationally over crew size. These negotiations are the impetus of this action.

B. The April 2005 Strike

While the dispute involving crew size and wage reductions was ongoing, UTU was also involved in a dispute with BNSF Railway Company ("BNSF") regarding an agreement between BNSF and a different union, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers ("BLET").1 UTU objected to the BLET-BNSF Agreement because UTU contended that the Agreement affected when and in what seniority its conductors would be promoted to engineers. UTU took the position that the BLET-BNSF Agreement changed the status quo regarding CBAs between BNSF and UTU and that BNSF and BLET, in entering into the Agreement, instigated a major dispute.

On April 27, 2005,2 after a dual-seniority ground service employee at Grand Forks, Minnesota was assigned to an engineer's job under the BLET-BNSF Agreement while another dual-seniority ground service employee with greater engineer seniority continued to work as a conductor,3 UTU filed a lawsuit against BNSF and BLET, alleging that the Agreement violated the UTU-BNSF CBAs. Two hours latter, UTU struck BNSF. Rather than striking only at Grand Forks, UTU struck all over the former Burlington Northern portion of BNSF, from the Pacific to Pensacola.4 UTU did not warn BNSF that it was going to strike.

According to UTU, the Minnesota District Court ordered it back to work within two hours of the initiation of the strike. Eventually, the Minnesota District Court held that the dispute over the BLET-BNSF Agreement was a minor dispute and referred the matter to the National Railroad Adjustment Board for mandatory arbitration. The court ordered the parties to maintain the status quo until the arbitration process was complete, but it determined that it was unnecessary to issue a strike injunction since striking over a minor dispute is illegal under the Railway Labor Act. See United Transp. Union v. BNSF Ry. Co., N. 05-cv-836 (S.D.Minn. May 16, 2005).

UTU did not request arbitration of the dispute over the BLET-BNSF Agreement until nine months after the Minnesota District Court declared the dispute to be minor. UTU claims that it did not fervently pursue arbitration because it was engaged in negotiations with BLET in an attempt to reconcile their differences, and the two unions have since agreed to cooperate regarding the BLET-BNSF Agreement issue. Conversely, the Railroads imply that UTU did not pursue the matter because the stated reasons for the April 2005 were merely pretext and, in reality, UTU struck over the crew size and wage reduction proposal, which is the subject of the instant dispute.

II. Legal Standards
A. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of "informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 103 S.Ct. at 2553. The non-moving party must come forward with "specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant. See, e.g., Broussard v. Parish of Orleans, 318 F.3d 644, 650 (5th Cir.2003).

If the evidence would permit a reasonable fact finder to find in favor of the non-moving party, summary judgment should not be granted. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). However, "[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 106 S.Ct. 2512. Determining credibility, weighing evidence, and drawing reasonable inferences are left to the trier of fact. See id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2313.

B. Declaratory Judgment Standard

A party may bring an action in federal court for a declaratory judgment regarding the "rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration." 28 U.S.C. § 2201. However, the court has considerable discretion in deciding whether to issue a declaratory judgment. See Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 286, 115 S.Ct. 2137, 2142, 132 L.Ed.2d 214 (1995) ("Since its inception, the Declaratory Judgment Act has been understood to confer on federal courts unique and substantial discretion in deciding whether to declare the rights of litigants."); Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Holmes County, 343 F.3d 383, 389 (5th Cir.2003) (quoting Wilton, 515 U.S. at 287, 115 S.Ct. at 2143) ("The Declaratory...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Bnsf Ry. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Texas
    • November 12, 2008
    ...then represented by UTU and a wage reduction for employees hired after the commencement of a new CBA. See BNSF Ry. Co. v. United Transp. Union, 462 F.Supp.2d 746, 750 (S.D.Tex.2006). The NCCC carriers sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that UTU has a policy of unlawfully stri......

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