Int'l Ass'n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transp. Workers (Smart)—Transportation Div. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd.

• Decision Date: 20 November 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:20-cv-02098 (TNM)
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS (SMART)—TRANSPORTATION DIVISION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, Defendant, and BNSF Railway Company, et al., Defendant-Intervenors.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

502 F.Supp.3d 180

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS (SMART)—TRANSPORTATION DIVISION, et al., Plaintiffs,

v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, Defendant,andBNSF Railway Company, et al., Defendant-Intervenors.

Case No. 1:20-cv-02098 (TNM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed November 20, 2020

Jeffrey A. Bartos, John J. Grunert, Jr., Guerrieri, Bartos & Roma PC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Johnny Hillary Walker, III, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

Donald J. Munro, Aaron Samuels Markel, Jones Day, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Intervenors.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TREVOR N. McFADDEN, U.S.D.J.

The International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers—Transportation Division ("SMART-TD") seeks declaratory and injunctive relief after the National Mediation Board ("NMB") tapped SMART-TD's vice president to represent SMART-TD's subunits in arbitrations with rail carriers. SMART-TD argues that the NMB lacked statutory authority to make this designation because there is another arbitration pending elsewhere that preempts the new arbitrations.

But SMART-TD's position misconstrues the language of the governing statute, the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"). This Act provides when and how the NMB must designate representatives to participate in arbitrations. And the NMB complied with its obligations here. And the RLA allocates elsewhere responsibility for answering these potentially tricky preemption questions. The Court will thus deny SMART-TD's motion for a preliminary injunction and grant the NMB's motion to dismiss.

I.

The RLA is an "ambitious" statute that provides procedures for "the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes [between rail carriers and their employees] concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier engaged therein." Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Transp. Workers Union of Am. , 373 F.3d 121, 123 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (cleaned up).

"To effectuate peaceful dispute resolution, the RLA sets out a mandatory and virtually endless process of negotiation, mediation, voluntary arbitration, and conciliation." BNSF Ry. Co. v. Int'l Ass'n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transp. Workers-Transp. Div. , 973 F.3d 326, 334 (5th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). It prescribes distinct procedures for resolving "major" disputes (which arise when "a party seeks new agreement terms affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions") and "minor" ones (which "relate[ ] either to the meaning or proper application of a particular provision" in a collective bargaining agreement). Id. at 334–35 (cleaned up). As relevant here, the RLA allows for arbitration of minor disputes in one of two fora: The National Railroad Adjustment Board ("Adjustment Board") or a Public Law Board ("PLB").¹ The various boards discussed by the RLA are as follows:

• Adjustment Board. A statutorily created arbitration board that considers disputes related to "the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions[.]" Slocum v. Del., L. & W.R. Co. , 339 U.S. 239, 240, 70 S.Ct. 577, 94 L.Ed. 795 (1950) (cleaned up); see 45 U.S.C. § 153, First.

• PLB.² Either a rail carrier or labor union can issue a written request to the other to form a PLB "to resolve disputes otherwise referable to the Adjustment Board," or if a dispute "has been pending before the Adjustment Board for twelve months." See 45 U.S.C. § 153, Second ¶ 2. Each party then designates a "partisan member" to represent it on the PLB. Id. The partisan members decide "all matters" not already agreed to on the "establishment and jurisdiction" of the PLB. Id. If they cannot agree on these matters, they can jointly appoint a neutral member (known as the "procedural neutral") to resolve any such dispute. Id.

• NMB. Unlike the prior boards, the NMB is an independent federal agency. As relevant here, the NMB becomes involved in PLB arbitrations in one of two circumstances: If a party does not designate a partisan member, or if the partisan members are designated but fail to jointly appoint a procedural neutral. Id. In either case, one side can ask the NMB to designate the partisan member or procedural neutral. Id.

And the NMB "shall promptly" make the designation "[u]pon receipt of a request." Id.

* * *

SMART-TD is a labor organization that represents the "craft or class of train service employees employed by the nation's Class I railroads." Compl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 1. SMART-TD represents employees of BNSF Railway Company, Inc., The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, and Union Pacific Railroad Company (collectively, the "Railroads"). Id. It consists of "General Committees of Adjustment (‘GCAs’), which are semi-autonomous subordinate bodies typically consisting of employees of a single [rail] carrier which perform a number of tasks, including bargaining with the carrier(s) to make and maintain agreements pertaining to local matters." Id.

This year, SMART-TD and 23 of its GCAs challenged in this Court the Railroads’ efforts to form a PLB arbitration. See Int'l Ass'n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transp. Workers (SMART)—Transp. Div. et al. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd. , 1:20-cv-00200-TNM (D.D.C. Jan. 25, 2020) ("SMART-TD I "). The Railroads had sought a PLB to address whether "moratorium provisions" in agreements with the GCAs prevented their proposals to change the "crew consist" (that is, the number of conductors and trainmen assigned to work on a train).³ Compl. ¶¶ 5, 27, SMART-TD I. The Railroads requested to arbitrate this dispute through "national handling"—on a nationwide level with multiple rail carrier employers acting collectively. Id. ¶¶ 23, 27. SMART-TD refused to create a PLB or appoint a partisan member. Id. ¶ 28.

In response, the Railroads asked the NMB to designate SMART-TD's president as its partisan member. Id. And the NMB did so over SMART-TD's objections. Id. ¶¶ 30–31.

SMART-TD and its GCAs then sued the NMB, arguing that the NMB's decision to designate SMART-TD's president violated the RLA and Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Id. ¶¶ 33–42. They claimed in part that only a single rail carrier could ask the NMB to designate a partisan member. Id. ¶ 37. They also moved for a preliminary injunction vacating the NMB's designation. See Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj., SMART-TD I , ECF No. 13.

The NMB moved to dismiss the complaint. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, SMART-TD I , ECF No. 24. And the Railroads intervened as defendants and opposed the preliminary injunction. See Mot. to Intervene, SMART-TD I , ECF No. 17; Def.-Intervenors’ Opp'n, SMART-TD I , ECF No. 23. The Court held a consolidated hearing on the merits. See Min. Entry (May 8, 2020). But it never issued a ruling. A week after the merits hearing, the Railroads withdrew their request to form the PLB and moved to dismiss the case as moot. See Def.-Intervenors’ Suggestion of Mootness, SMART-TD I , ECF No. 37. In doing so, they noted that they "still intend to pursue their respective moratorium claims against SMART-TD on a single-carrier basis." Id. SMART-TD agreed the case was moot. See Pls.’ Resp. to Suggestion of Mootness, SMART-TD I , ECF No. 38. So the Court dismissed the case. Order, SMART-TD I , ECF No. 39.

But that was not the end of the line for this dispute. On the same day the Court dismissed SMART-TD I , each Railroad separately served requests on the GCAs to establish PLBs to arbitrate the same dispute over whether moratorium provisions prohibited changes to the crew consist. Compl. ¶ 37. Each Railroad also asked the GCAs to designate a partisan member to participate in these PLB arbitrations. Id. None of the GCAs agreed to join the PLBs or appoint a partisan member to represent them. Id.

Instead, more than a week later, the GCAs filed Notices of Intent to Arbitrate with the Adjustment Board, and they served these notices on the Railroads. Id. ¶ 38. The GCAs then argued to the Adjustment Board that the Railroads’ requests for arbitration in the PLBs "were both untimely and procedurally deficient and therefore could not be addressed on the merits by any arbitral body." Id. ¶ 40. The Adjustment Board docketed the Notices of Intent and set an August deadline for the GCAs’ submissions. Id. ¶ 41.

Meanwhile, after the GCAs failed to appoint partisan members to the PLB arbitrations, the Railroads requested that the NMB designate one on the GCAs’ behalf. Id. ¶ 42. The GCAs again objected. They argued that the Adjustment Board's "assumption of jurisdiction precluded the NMB from acting on the [Railroads’] requests." Id. ¶ 44. But the NMB appointed Brent Leonard—SMART-TD's vice president—to serve as the partisan member for each GCA in the PLB arbitrations. Id. ¶ 45.

SMART-TD and its GCAs now sue the NMB again under the RLA and APA.⁴ SMART-TD claims the NMB exceeded its statutory authority when it designated Leonard to serve as the partisan member for the GCAs. Id. ¶¶ 49–54.

As before, SMART-TD also filed a motion for preliminary injunction to vacate the designation and prevent the NMB from taking any more action on these PLBs. See Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. ("Pls.’ Mot."), ECF No. 9.

The Railroads again intervened and now oppose the preliminary injunction motion. See Min. Order (Aug. 13, 2020) (granting Railroads’ unopposed motion to intervene); Def.-Intervenors’ Opp'n to Mot. for Prelim. Inj. ("Def.-Intervenors’ Opp'n"), ECF No. 18. The NMB also opposes the motion and moves to dismiss the Complaint. See Mem. in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss & Opp'n to Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 20-1.

SMART-TD's motion for a preliminary injunction and the NMB's motion to dismiss are now ripe for disposition.⁵

II.

"A preliminary injunction is ‘an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right,’ but as an exercise of discretion by a court sitting in equity." Capitol Hill Baptist Church v....