BROTH. OF LOCOMOTIVE ENG. v. Burlington Northern Railroad, CV-85-055-GF.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-85-055-GF.,CV-85-055-GF. |
| Citation | 620 F. Supp. 173 |
| Parties | BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, Plaintiff, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
Benjamin Hilley, Hilley & Loring, Great Falls, Mont., Joseph E. Prekop, Harold A. Ross, Ross & Kraushaar Co., Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.
Alexander Blewett, III, Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett & Weaver, Great Falls, Mont., for defendants.
The plaintiff, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers ("Brotherhood"), instituted the present action for declaratory and injunctive relief, to enjoin the defendant, Burlington Northern Railroad Company ("BN"), from subjecting members of the Brotherhood to urine-testing, designed to curtail the "on-duty" use of alcohol and other intoxicating substances by employees, as forbidden by a safety rule of the BN. The action follows "on the heels" of another action decided today by this court, involving the BN's utilization of dogs trained to detect the presence of drugs or controlled substances in the personal effects of "on-duty" employees. See, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company, 620 F.Supp. 163 (D.Mont.1985) ("BLE I"). Both actions involve the issue of whether the BN's unilateral implementation of the procedures at issue to detect violations of the BN's safety rules prohibiting the "on-duty" possession or use of intoxicants by its employees violates the pertinent provision of the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq. The present action is before the court on motion of the BN requesting the court to enter summary judgment in its favor with respect to the claims advanced by the Brotherhood.1
The issue which the court must ultimately resolve is whether the BN's unilateral implementation of its mandatory urine-testing policy constitutes a change in working conditions, accomplished in violation of the notice, negotiation and mediation requirements imposed by § 2 in conjunction with § 6 of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. §§ 152 and 156. Restated, the court must decide whether the controversy regarding BN's implementation presents a "major" or "minor" dispute within the meaning of the RLA. See, Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 65 S.Ct. 1282, 89 L.Ed. 1886 (1944).
In a memorandum entered in BLE I on this day, the court set forth its interpretation of the state of the law with respect to (1) the meaning of the term "working condition" as used in the § 2, Seventh and § 3, First (i) of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. §§ 152, Seventh and 153, First (i); and (2) the major-minor dichotomy presented in the RLA. Applying the rationale espoused in BLE I to the facts established in this matter, the court finds it appropriate to enter summary judgment at this juncture. In that regard, the court finds it appropriate to take judicial notice of the record in BLE I, especially the facts as found to exist by the court in that matter, in resolving the present motion for summary judgment. See, Union Mechling Corp. v. United States, 566 F.2d 722 (1977).
The evidence presented in BLE I established the terms of the agreement extant between the Brotherhood and the BN regarding the means of detecting Rule G violations. The critical term of that agreement, found by the court in BLE I to have reached an implied contractual status, is the term requiring the existence of a modicum of evidence that a particular employee was operating under the influence of a prohibited substance, before a supervisor could conduct further investigation. For the identical reasons set forth in BLE...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Burlington Northern R. Co.
...agreement as amended by custom and practice, and thus constituted a "minor dispute" under the RLA. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng'rs v. Burlington N.R.R., 620 F.Supp. 173, 175 (D.Mont.1985). Accordingly, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the dispute, and granted summary ju......
-
International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Airline Div. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 87-1085
...Burlington N. R.R., 620 F.Supp. 163 (D.C.Mont.1985), aff'd, 838 F.2d at 1105; Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Burlington N. R.R., 620 F.Supp. 173 (D.C.Mont.1985), reversed, 838 F.2d at 1090. Southwest argues that this case differs from the Burlington cases because the collective barg......
-
Gregory v. Burlington Northern R. Co.
...is the Adjustment Board, absent a clear expression of legislative policy to the contrary); Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 620 F.Supp. 173, 175 (D.Mont.1985) (controversy between railroad and union over railroad's unilateral implementation of mandato......
-
RY. LABOR EXECUTIVES v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co.
...and involves a minor dispute subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the NRAB. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 620 F.Supp. 173, 175 (D.Mont.1985) ("BLE II"). In contrast to the dog sniffs in BLE I, N & W has not made any unilateral changes in its en......