Gust v. Soo Line R. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 October 1996
• Docket Number: No. 96-C-1165.,96-C-1165.
• Parties: Christopher A. GUST, Plaintiff, v. SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, d/b/a CP RAIL SYSTEM, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

942 F.Supp. 408

Christopher A. GUST, Plaintiff, v. SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, d/b/a CP RAIL SYSTEM, Defendant.

No. 96-C-1165.

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin.

October 25, 1996.

Yaeger Jungbauer Barzak & Roe, P.L.C. by Gregory T. Yaeger and Michael McReynolds, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff.

Godfrey, Braun & Hayes by William H. Frazier, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

MYRON L. GORDON, District Judge.

The plaintiff, Christopher A. Gust, is employed as a conductor by the defendant railroad company. He filed this action on October 10, 1996 for injuries allegedly suffered by him on September 16, 1996, while he was engaged in the "course and scope" of his employment. This court's jurisdiction is based on the Federal Employers' Liability Act ["FELA"], 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60. Accompanying Mr. Gust's complaint was a motion for a preliminary injunction. It is this motion that is presently before the court. The parties have stipulated that the plaintiff's motion not be considered as one for a temporary restraining order.

Mr. Gust claims that on September 20, 1996, four days after his alleged injuries occurred, Soo Line notified him that it would be holding an investigation hearing regarding the incidents from which Mr. Gust's injuries arose. The defendant originally scheduled the investigation for September 25, 1996, but by agreement of the parties it has been rescheduled for November 5, 1996. Mr. Gust's motion seeks to prevent the defendant from requiring him to appear at the investigation or from disciplining him for failure to appear.

The plaintiff characterizes the defendant's investigation as an attempt to engage in "extra-judicial discovery" in violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, Mr. Gust alleges that the defendant's investigation violates two federal statutes. First, he claims that the investigation is void under 45 U.S.C. § 55, which prohibits the use of "any contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever" that enables a common carrier to exempt itself from liability under FELA. Second, the plaintiff argues that the defendant's investigation violates 45 U.S.C. § 60, which provides for the punishment of the use of "any device whatsoever" that prevents employees from voluntarily furnishing information about the injury or death of another employee.

Soo Line asserts that this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to decide whether the defendant may proceed with its investigation of the September 16, 1996 incident because it is a "minor dispute" under the Railway Labor Act ["RLA"], 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-163, 181-188. The RLA provides for compulsory arbitration of "minor disputes" over "the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions." 45 U.S.C. § 153(i); Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, ___, 114 S.Ct. 2239, 2244, 129 L.Ed.2d 203 (1994). The court of appeals for the seventh circuit has noted that it would be appropriate to describe a "minor dispute" under the RLA as a dispute over "interpretation" of the collective bargaining agreement ["CBA"], rather than "modification" of the CBA. Chicago & North Western Transp. Co. v. Railway Labor Executives' Assoc., 908 F.2d 144, 148 (7th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1120, 111 S.Ct. 1073, 112 L.Ed.2d 1179 (1991). In enacting the RLA, Congress "considered it essential to keep these so-called `minor' disputes within the Adjustment Board and out of the courts." Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557, 563, 107 S.Ct. 1410, 1414, 94 L.Ed.2d 563 (1987) (emphasis added). The court will not have subject matter jurisdiction unless the investigation itself violates a specific federal statutory section. Jackson v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 717 F.2d 1045, 1050-51 (7th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1007, 104 S.Ct. 1000, 79 L.Ed.2d 233 (1984); Hendley v. Central of Georgia R.R., 609 F.2d 1146, 1152 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1093, 101 S.Ct. 890, 66 L.Ed.2d 822 (1981); Holmes v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry., 815 F.Supp. 279, 283 (N.D.Ind.1992).

Soo Line scheduled the investigation hearing pursuant to Article 9 of the CBA between the defendant and the United Transportation Union. Mr. Gust is a member of the United Transportation Union. Article 9(c) of the CBA provides that the defendant may, upon notification to the employee, conduct an investigation of an alleged offense by that employee. (Defendant's Exhibit 1). Article 9(d) of the CBA also provides that, subject to some limited exceptions, an employee will not be "held out of service prior to a fair and impartial investigation and subsequent written decision." (Defendant's Exhibit 1).

Soo Line avows that since the investigation that Mr. Gust seeks to enjoin is pursuant to a negotiated agreement between Mr. Gust's union and the railroad, it is a dispute involving the interpretation or application of the CBA, and therefore is a minor dispute. This argument is persuasive. The defendant properly followed procedures set forth by the CBA for the investigation of a possible workplace violation by Mr. Gust. Moreover, an investigation or hearing to determine the facts of the September 16, 1996 incident may subject Mr. Gust to discipline under the CBA and can fairly be characterized as a dispute arising under the CBA. See Hendley, 609 F.2d at 1150 ("It is clear that a disciplinary hearing which is conducted in accordance with the procedures set out in an applicable collective bargaining agreement would usually constitute a minor dispute."); Holmes, 815 F.Supp. at 282-83 (finding that since the disciplinary proceeding at issue was to convene pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, "the disciplinary proceeding complained of by [plaintiff] is a minor dispute, normally within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RLA."). I believe that the investigation hearing scheduled by Soo Line is a "minor dispute" under the RLA.

The court finds that the investigation hearing does not fall into the narrow exception that would allow this court to assert subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Gust's motion for a preliminary injunction. The proposed investigation is not a direct violation of a federal statute, despite the plaintiff's assertion that it violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 45 U.S.C. § 55, and 45 U.S.C. § 60. In describing this exception to the RLA's preemption of federal courts, the court of appeals for the seventh circuit has emphasized that there is a distinction between a specific violation of a federal statute and a violation of the policy underlying a federal statute. Jackson, 717 F.2d at 1050. One court has noted that "in every instance...