Flight Options, LLC v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 1:16-CV-00732
| Decision Date | 24 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:16-CV-00732,1:16-CV-00732 |
| Parties | FLIGHT OPTIONS, LLC and FLEXJET, LLC, Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 1108; INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; and BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, AIRLINE DIVISION, Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
On April 22, 2016, Counter-Plaintiffs International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al. ("Pilots Union" or "the Union") filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against Counter-Defendants Flight Options, et al. ("Carriers").1 The lawsuit stems from pilot integration issues and collective bargaining issues after a merger between airline carriers Flight Options and Flexjets.
On May 25, 2016, this Court granted the preliminary injunction.2 The Court ordered Carriers to accept the integrated seniority list, rescind the voluntary separation package, and bargain in good faith with the Union Counter-Plaintiffs.3
On October 24, 2016, Counter-Plaintiffs Pilots Union filed a motion to find Counter-Defendants Carriers in contempt. The Pilots Union argues that the Carriers violated the preliminary injunction. Pilots Union also moved for further temporary and preliminary injunctiverelief.4 The Union argues that the Carriers have violated the preliminary injunction by failing to rescind the voluntary separation package and by failing to negotiate collective bargaining issues in good faith.5 The Union requests further injunctive relief (1) requiring Carriers to bargain and (2) preventing Carriers from transferring certain aircraft abroad to one of their subsidiaries.6
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Pilots Union's motion for contempt and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Pilots Union's motion for further injunctive relief.
This case concerns disputes between Pilots Union and Carriers arising out of the merger of two luxury jet airline carriers: Flexjet and Flight Options. This Court's May 25, 2016 preliminary injunction order sought to temporarily resolve some of those disputes. The Pilots Union now argues that Carriers should be found in contempt for violating that order. The Pilots Union also claims that it should receive further injunctive relief.
On April 22, 2016, the Pilots Union filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against the Carriers.7 Important for this decision, the Pilots Union argued that although the Pilots Union was the certified pilot representative, the Carriers improperly presented Pilot Union members with a voluntary separation package ("VSP") without notice to the Union or bargaining opportunity. The VSP sought to resolve overstaffing issues after the merger.8 Pilots Union said that Carriers were required to bargain with the Union oversuch a package, refused to do so, and presented the VSP to the pilots without abiding by Railway Labor Act ("RLA") procedures.9
On May 25, 2016, this Court granted the Pilots Union's preliminary injunction.10 The Court ordered Carriers to rescind the VSP and ordered the Carriers to bargain with the Union.11
After this Court's order, the Carriers rescinded the VSP and notified all pilots that the offer had been withdrawn.12 Carriers did not, however, rescind the VSP for pilots that had accepted the VSP, had resigned, and were in the process of receiving benefits before the preliminary injunction was issued.13
As for a new VSP, Pilots Union and Carriers met face-to-face on May 31 and June 1, 2016.14 The parties exchanged proposals. The Union argues that the parties reached a binding agreement.15 Pilots Union alleges that the agreement fell through, however, because the Carriers conditioned the agreement on the Union's subsequent proposal for dropping this lawsuit.16 The Carriers respond that they complied with the Court's order by bargaining in good faith with Pilots Union, but were unable to reach a final agreement.17
Both before and after the Court's May 25 order, the Pilots Union has attempted to negotiate rates of pay, work rules, and other issues for the new combined class of Flight Optionsand Flexjet pilots.18 The Union states that Carriers are "going through the motions" instead of engaging in any meaningful bargaining.19
Carriers argue that this issue comes down to a disagreement between the parties on the appropriate scope of bargaining. Specifically, Carriers argue that there is a distinction between 2010 Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") Section 1.5(c)(4) bargaining and RLA Section 6 bargaining.20 The 2010 CBA is the collective bargaining agreement between Flight Options and the Union, originally agreed to in March 2010. The 2010 CBA still controls today.21
According to Carriers, the parties disagree over whether current points of negotiation, including pay for the post-merger pilot class, fall under Section 1.5(c)(4). Carriers argue that Section 1.5(c)(4) issues should take priority over RLA Section 6 disputes.
The Union disagrees, arguing that Carriers must bargain over Section 6 issues now but refuse to do so.22
To summarize, the parties' 2010 CBA Section 1.5(c)(4) sets up a procedure to bring the new pilots from the acquired airline under the 2010 CBA contract provisions. If they are unable to reach a negotiated agreement for incorporating pilots from the acquired airline, Section 1.5(c)(4) requires the parties submit unresolved issues to binding interest arbitration. Importantly, Section 1.5(c)(4) is broad and requires mediation, and interest arbitration, of nearly all CBA provisions.
In late June and early July 2016, the parties participated in an arbitration under the 2010 CBA § 1.5(c)(2) to resolve fence issues regarding working terms during the pendency ofnegotiations.23 The arbitrator's Section 1.5(c)(4) Fence Agreement Decision requires that only Flight Options pilots can fly "Flight Options Aircrafts," and orders that such aircrafts "not be sold, leased or transferred in any fashion to FlexjetLLC or One Sky Flight, LLC, or any subsidiaries to avoid or evade the terms" of the Fence Agreement Decision.24
In August 2016, Flexjet announced that Flexjet Ltd., Flexjet's U.K. subsidiary, would acquire a company called FlairJet.25 Flexjet also announced that FlairJet would utilize Flight Options Aircrafts.26
The Union contends that the Carriers' plan to transfer aircrafts from the United States to Europe violates the Fence Agreement Decision. Arbitration on this plane transfer issue was scheduled for January 16-17, 2017.27 The Union argues that it needs injunctive relief because aircraft transfers to the U.K. before the arbitrator's decision could defeat this Court's jurisdiction to order their return.28
On October 24, 2016, Pilots Union filed a motion for contempt and further temporary and preliminary injunctive relief.29 The Pilots Union argue that the Carriers should be found in contempt for failing to rescind the VSP. The Union also seeks a finding that the Carriers failed to negotiate a new agreement in good faith.30 The Union argues that the Carriers reachedagreement on the VSP and should be required to execute and implement the negotiated June 2016 VSP agreement.31
The Union also requests further injunctive relief 1) ordering Carriers to negotiate mandatory bargaining subjects for the new combined class of Flight Options and Flexjet pilots under RLA Section 6 and 2) preventing the Carriers from transferring certain aircraft to their British subsidiaries and requiring Carriers to proceed to arbitration.32
The Court held a hearing on January 12, 2017.
In considering a motion for civil contempt, the moving party must show "by clear and convincing evidence" that the opposing party violated the district court's prior order.33 The prior order must be "definite and specific" so that the party charged with violating the order is aware of its requirements.34 Any "ambiguities must be resolved in favor" of the non-movant.35
A district court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction under the Railway Labor Act is discretionary.36 In considering whether to use a preliminary injunction, courts weigh: "(1) whether the movant has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will suffer irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) would thepreliminary injunction cause substantial harm to others; and (4) will the public interest be served if the injunction issues."37
However, in a RLA labor dispute, a district court may "enjoin a violation of the status quo pending completion of the required procedures, without the customary showing of irreparable injury."38
The RLA distinguishes between two categories of labor disputes: "disputes concerning the making of collective agreements," known as major disputes, and "disputes over grievances," known as minor disputes.40 Federal courts have jurisdiction to deal with major disputes; minor disputes must be submitted to binding arbitration.
The Sixth Circuit recently described the difference between major and minor disputes. The Sixth Circuit said that a major dispute is one that arises ...
To continue reading
Request your trial