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

• Decision Date: 11 February 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-00789-P
• Citation: 439 F.Supp.3d 832
• Parties: BNSF RAILWAY CO. et al., Plaintiffs, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL, AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS-TRANSPORTATION DIVISION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

439 F.Supp.3d 832

BNSF RAILWAY CO. et al., Plaintiffs,

v.INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL, AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS-TRANSPORTATION DIVISION, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-00789-P

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

Signed February 11, 2020

Donald J. Munro, Aaron Samuels Markel, Pro Hac Vice, Jones Day, Washington, DC, Braden C. Allman, Russell D. Cawyer, Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP, Fort Worth, TX, Brian M. Jorgensen, Jones Day, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs.

Sanford R. Denison, Baab & Denison LLP, Dallas, TX, Erika A. Diehl-Gibbons, Pro Hac Vice, Kevin C. Brodar, Pro Hac Vice, Shawn M. McKinley, Pro Hac Vice, United Transportation, North Olmsted, OH, for Defendant.

PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER

Mark T. Pittman, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court are Plaintiffs BNSF Railway Company; The Kansas City Southern Railway Company; CSX Transportation, Inc.; Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company; Norfolk Southern Railway Company; Illinois Central Railroad Company; Union Pacific Railroad Company; and The Belt Railway Company of Chicago's (collectively "Railroads" or "Plaintiffs") Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 18), Defendant International Association of Sheet Metal Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers-Transportation Division's ("SMART-TD") Response (ECF No. 34), and the Railroads' Reply (ECF No. 38). Having considered the Parties' preliminary-injunction briefing and appendices attached thereto, arguments of counsel at the injunction hearing, and applicable law, the Court concludes that the Railroads' Motion for Preliminary Injunction should be and is hereby GRANTED and converted into a PERMANENT INJUNCTION .

BACKGROUND

A. The Parties and the Dispute

It is undisputed that the Railroads are "carriers" as defined by the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"). See 45 U.S.C. § 151 First. It is undisputed that SMART-TD is a "representative" labor organization as defined by the RLA. Id. § 151 Seventh.¹ The dispute that is at the heart of this lawsuit concerns the number of crewpersons—that is, the "crew consist"—that the Railroads must have on a train to operate it. See Compl. at ¶¶ 20, 40, 47, ECF No. 1; Mt. for Prelim. Inj. at 5, ECF No. 19. More specifically, the dispute concerns whether the RLA requires SMART-TD to begin bargaining ("negotiating" or "handling") with the Railroads over proposed changes to the current crew consist. The current crew consist is two: a single conductor and a single engineer. See Branon Decl. at ¶ 13, App'x in Support of Mt. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 20.

The Railroads served notices to SMART-TD stating that based on the Railroads' interpretation of the current labor agreements ("CBAs"), they seek to begin negotiations regarding crew consist pending arbitration and bargaining.² See Compl. at ¶ 44; Mt. for Prelim. Inj. App'x at 239, 559–70, 572, 577–78, Branon Decl. at ¶¶ 28–29, ECF No. 20. The Railroads contend that because of improvements in technology and regulatory compliance, they may be able to reduce or redeploy conductors from locomotives to ground-based positions. Compl. at ¶ 43; Branon Decl. at ¶¶ 24–26. SMART-TD responded that national handling of crew consist issues would be inappropriate. Resp to Mt. for Prelim. Inj. App'x at 180–91, Ferguson Decl. at ¶ 19, ECF No. 36. The Railroads assert that any proposed crew size reduction or redeployment is not inconsistent with the current CBAs (Mt. for Prelim. Inj. at 2), while SMART-TD asserts that any reduction in crew size has already been contemplated by moratorium provisions in the existing CBAs and thus new proposals on the subject are barred. See Resp. to Mt. for Prelim. Inj. at 10–11, ECF No. 35.

B. Collective Bargaining Under the RLA

Collective bargaining between the Railroads and SMART-TD is governed by the RLA. See 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 – 165. The RLA imposes a duty on "all carriers, their officers, agents, and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements or otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier growing out of any dispute between the carrier and the employees thereof."³ Id. § 152 First. The RLA further provides, inter alia , "No carrier, its officers, or agents shall change the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions of its employees, as a class, as embodied in agreements except in the manner prescribed in such agreements or in section 156 of this title." Id. § 152 Seventh. Under the RLA, CBAs exist until stated otherwise and are amended only through the service of written notice of intended changes in agreements affecting the above-quoted list. Id. § 156; see also Branon Decl. at ¶ 12. These "Section 6 Notices," require the parties' representatives to begin conferencing about the proposed changes within thirty days provided in the notice. 45 U.S.C. § 156.

When carriers and representatives have a dispute over an interpretation of an existing CBA, the RLA provides two separate but mandatory procedures depending on whether the dispute is a "minor dispute" or a "major dispute." Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Exec. Ass'n , 491 U.S. 299, 302, 109 S.Ct. 2477, 105 L.Ed.2d 250 (1989) (" Conrail "); United Transp. Union v. Alton & S. Ry. Co. , No. CIV. 05-190-GPM, 2006 WL 664181, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2006) (" UTU ") ("The RLA provides two distinct avenues for dispute resolution, each being dependent upon whether the dispute is categorized as major or minor.").⁴ The Supreme Court has explained that a "major dispute seek[s] to create contractual rights, minor disputes to enforce them." Conrail , 491 U.S. at 302, 109 S.Ct. 2477 ; Burley , 325 U.S. at 723–24, 65 S.Ct. 1282.

C. Crew Consist Bargaining: Past and Present

Both sides acknowledge that crew size or crew consist has been an issue between them for many years. See Mt. for Prelim. Inj. at 5 ("The issue [of crew consist] was debated for decades in a series of increasingly acrimonious bargaining rounds."), Resp. to Mt. for Prelim. Inj. at 3 ("Crew size has been an issue between [Plaintiffs and Defendant] over the years."). In the first half of the twentieth century, trains generally operated with five employees, which included an engineer, a conductor, a "fireman", and two "brakemen." Gradia Decl. at ¶ 12, ECF No. 20-2 at 16. However, the Railroads have maintained that with innovation over the passage of time, fewer workers have been needed to operate the trains. Compl. at ¶ 21. Without engaging in a more exhaustive history and without ascribing motivation to either side, it is sufficient to state that Railroads have generally pursued a reduction in crew size, and SMART-TD (and its predecessors) has generally resisted reduction. Today, the current crew consist is a single engineer and a single conductor. Branon Decl. at ¶ 13.

As part of the back-and-forth of labor negotiations on the issue of crew size and crew reduction, it has been the case that in exchange for reducing crew sizes, the Railroads have agreed to provide certain benefits to "protected employees," so defined in various CBAs. Id. at ¶ 14. Another related agreement coming out of prior negotiations concerns rules of "attrition" or "pure attrition," in which said protected employees would not be furloughed as a result of crew size reductions. Id. at ¶ 15. Finally, prior negotiations have caused CBAs to generally include "moratorium provisions," which prohibit proposed changes to other "specific provisions" prior to the attrition of all protected employees. Id. at ¶ 18.

Related to the debate over crew size has been a debate about whether the issue should be handled (i.e. , bargained for) nationally or locally. For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit considered a case in which the carriers wanted national handling for the issue of crew consist and the representatives opposed national handling in favor of local bargaining. See Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. , 383 F.2d 225, 228–29 (D.C. Cir. 1976). The court rejected both parties' positions on whether the RLA permits a party to demand that such disputes be referred to national handling. Id. at 228. A subsequent Presidential Emergency Board ("PEB") No. 219, addressed the issue and noted that "[c]rew consist has always been bargained locally and has never been the subject of a national agreement." PEB No. 219 Report at 83; Resp. to Mt. for Prelim. Inj. App'x at 98. And in 2004, the railroad carriers again argued that crew consist was a national issue. The District Court for the Southern District of Illinois held that the representatives were "not obligated to bargain nationally on issues related to crew consist," and while the representatives "may agree to do so, ... [they] cannot be forced to do so." UTU , 2006 WL 664181, at *6.

Today, modern agreements concerning crew consist have been bargained and agreed upon based on locals or GCAs. Previsich Decl. at ¶ 18.

D. Procedural Background

The Railroads filed the instant civil action on October 3, 2019, in anticipation of a "new round of bargaining [that] formally opens on November 1 of this year." Compl. at ¶ 42. The Railroads seek a declaratory judgment that (1) the dispute over the applicable CBAs is a "minor dispute"; (2) SMART-TD's refusal to negotiate over the Railroads' proposed reduction in crew consist violated the RLA; and (3) SMART-TD is obligated to bargain on a craft-wide, system-wide basis. Id. at ¶¶ 50–62. Finally, the Railroads seek injunctive relief (1) requiring SMART-TD to arbitrate the current crew consist dispute, (2) requiring SMART-TD to negotiate with the Railroads in good faith regarding crew consist proposals pending arbitration, and (3) requiring SMART-TD to negotiate with the Railroads in good faith regarding alternative wage proposals pending arbitration. See id. at 19.

...