Brotherhood of Maint. of Way v. Union Pacific R.

• Decision Date: 16 February 2007
• Docket Number: No. C 06-4103-MWB.,C 06-4103-MWB.
• Citation: 475 F.Supp.2d 819
• Parties: BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Plaintiff, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD Company, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

475 F.Supp.2d 819

BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES DIVISION OF INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Plaintiff, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD Company, Defendant.

No. C 06-4103-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

February 16, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Scott H. Peters, Peters Law Firm PC, Council Bluffs, IA, William R. Wilder, Baptiste & Wilder, PC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Henry N. Carnaby, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Omaha, NE, Patrick L. Sealey, Sioux City, IA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

BENNETT, District Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I.  INTRODUCTION .......................................................................822
                      A.  Factual Background .............................................................822
                          1.  The parties ................................................................822
                          2.  The current system for recording attendance ................................823
                          3.  The new system .............................................................824
                          4.  Testing and plans to roll out the new system ...............................824
                          5.  Relevant collective bargaining agreements ..................................827
                      B.  Procedural Background ..........................................................828
                          1.  The original complaint and the motion for preliminary injunction ...........828
                          2.  The renewed motion for preliminary injunction and the motion to
                               dismiss ...................................................................828
                          3.  The amended complaint and clarification of issues for hearing ..............829
                 II.  LEGAL ANALYSIS .....................................................................830
                      A.  The Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction ..................831
                          1.  Arguments of the parties ...................................................832
                              a.  The Carrier's initial argument .........................................832
                              b.  The Union's response ...................................................833
                              c.  The Carrier's reply ....................................................834
                          2.  Standards for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ............834
                          3.  Subject matter jurisdiction under the Railway Labor Act ....................835
                          4.  Is the present dispute "major" or "minor"? .................................838
                              a.  Terms of the pertinent agreements ......................................838
                              b.  Whether the dispute is comprehended within the agreements ..............839
                                   i.  Scope of the agreements ...........................................839
                                  ii.  The effect of past practice .......................................841
                              c.  Creation or acquisition of rights ......................................842
                              d.  Presumptions ...........................................................842
                          5.  Summary ....................................................................843
                      B.  The Motion For Preliminary Injunction ..........................................843
                III.  CONCLUSION .........................................................................844
                

In this action, the plaintiff railway workers union seeks injunctive and other appropriate relief pursuant to the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, to remedy the defendant railroad's allegedly unlawful alteration of the statutory status quo between the parties by seeking to impose, unilaterally and in derogation of statutory and collective bargaining requirements, "iris recognition technology" to record attendance of employees of "rail" and "tie" gangs employed by the defendant. The union seeks a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo while the parties pursue this litigation, but the railroad has moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The issues presented in the two motions are intertwined to the extent that both involve the question of whether the parties' dispute is "major" or "minor" within the meaning of the RLA, and if the parties' dispute is "minor," this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to enter a preliminary injunction or to grant any other relief. Therefore, the court ordered a joint hearing on both motions and now enters a joint ruling.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Factual Background

The factual background to the motions presently before the court is gleaned from the plaintiff's December 15, 2006, Complaint (docket no. 2);¹ the plaintiff's January 19, 2007, renewed Motion For Preliminary Injunction (docket no. 19);² the defendant's January 29, 2006, Memorandum In Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion For Preliminary Injunction (docket no. 22), and January 29, 2007, Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (docket no. 21); the plaintiff s February 9, 2007, Opposition To Defendant's Motion To Dismiss And Reply Memorandum In Support Of Plaintiffs Motion For Preliminary Injunction (docket no. 30); and the defendant's February 12, 2007, Reply Memorandum In Support Of Defendant's Motion To Dismiss For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (docket no. 31). The parties agreed that no further evidence needed to be submitted at the hearing on the pending motions, so that hearing consisted of oral arguments only.

1. The parties

In light of the submissions noted above, it appears that plaintiff Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the Union) — an unincorporated labor organization with its headquarters in Southfield, Michigan — is the certified bargaining representative of the maintenance of way craft or class. Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (the Carrier) is a "carrier" within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., with its principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska, although it regularly conducts business in this judicial district and other areas in the western portion of the United States. The Union's members perform maintenance of way and repair functions for the Carrier's tracks and certain other aspects of its rail system in "rail gangs" and "tie gangs." The dispute between the Union and the Carrier that is the basis for the present litigation arises from the Carrier's alleged intention to introduce unilaterally a new method to verify the attendance of Union members at job locations. To put that dispute in context, the court must first review the current system for recording attendance used by the Carrier.

2. The current system for recording attendance

The Union alleges that the "rail gangs" and "tie gangs" providing maintenance and repair functions for the Carrier may consist of dozens of its members, but the Carrier points out, and the court finds, that "gangs" may also consist of far fewer members and, indeed, may consist of only a single person, such as a track inspector, bridge inspector, flange oil operator, or operator of certain machines. Whatever the size of the "gang," employees in a particular "gang" are given a job assignment to report to a particular work location to which they are required to travel. At the reporting location, a foreman or assistant foreman, acting as timekeeper, records the employees' attendance and time worked, or in the case of single-member gangs, the employee himself or herself reports attendance and time. The Union contends that the established practice, for decades, has been for employees simply to respond to a roll call by the timekeeper or otherwise to be recognized by the timekeeper at the work location to which the employees have been assigned. The Carrier, on the other hand, contends that methods for reporting attendance and work hours have varied greatly from employee to employee depending upon such things as the size of the "gang" to which the employee has been assigned. While the Carrier concedes that roll calls have been typical for larger work groups, the Carrier contends that such a procedure certainly was not the only method used to verify the attendance of Union members at reporting locations. For example, the Carrier points out that individuals who act as a one-person "gang" may record their attendance and time on computers, from which the information is later directly downloaded into the Carrier's payroll accounting system.

The parties agree that, before the advent of computers at the reporting locations, attendance was recorded in written records or telephoned in to the Carrier by the timekeeper for the gang or the employee himself or herself. The Carrier asserts, and the Union does not dispute, that a significant change in timekeeping occurred in 1986 when the Carrier unilaterally implemented the Gang Management System (GMS), which involves direct entry of time and attendance data by a timekeeper into a computer terminal or a call by the timekeeper to a GMS clerk in Omaha to report attendance information. The Carrier argues that over 95% of time and attendance information is now entered directly into a computer along with production reporting and other gang-related information.

The Carrier contends, and the Union does not dispute, that the Carrier has always unilaterally determined the method for timekeeping practices used for Union members and that the Union has made no prior attempt to require negotiation over the establishment of timekeeping systems or timekeeping practices. As the Union points out, however, the changes in recording and reporting attendance and hours under the GMS have not required most Union members to do...