INTERNATIONAL ASS'N OF MACH. & AW v. NATIONAL MED. BD.

• Decision Date: 07 August 1969
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 466-69.
• Citation: 314 F. Supp. 229
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, and Leverett Edwards, Howard G. Gamser, and Francis A. O'Neill, Jr., Individually and As Chairman and Members of and Constituting the National Mediation Board, Defendants; National Airlines, Inc., Intervenor.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

314 F. Supp. 229

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, and Leverett Edwards, Howard G. Gamser, and Francis A. O'Neill, Jr., Individually and As Chairman and Members of and Constituting the National Mediation Board, Defendants;

National Airlines, Inc., Intervenor.

Civ. A. No. 466-69.

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

August 7, 1969.

Bernard Dunau, Plato E. Papps, Washington, D. C., for International Assn. of Machinists.

William D. Ruckelshaus, Harland F. Leathers, Stephen M. Truitt, Attys., Dept. of Justice, for National Mediation Board.

Julius Schlezinger, Washington, D. C., for National Airlines.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GESELL, District Judge.

Plaintiff is involved in a labor dispute with National Airlines which the National Mediation Board, under authority of the Railway Labor Act, has been attempting to mediate. The Union brings this action asking the Court to declare the efforts of the Board to bring about an amicable settlement through mediation unsuccessful and to issue an injunction directing the Board, pursuant to the statutory mandate, to endeavor to induce arbitration by the parties. 45 U.S.C.A. § 155. National Airlines has been permitted to intervene.

The Union directed written interrogatories to the Board asking, among other things, the basis on which the Board believed efforts to mediate might still be successful. The Board objected to these interrogatories and both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court directed that partial responses be filed to the interrogatories and action on the motions was deferred pending the Board's reply. The matter is now before the Court on various affidavits filed by the parties and by National Airlines.

This Court has jurisdiction to inquire into the reasons, if any, why the Board refuses to discontinue its mediation efforts and to take steps to induce arbitration. While the Court cannot substitute its judgment for the Board's, it must of necessity inquire into the merits of the controversy in order to determine whether there has been a clear violation of the statute by reason of the Board's alleged arbitrary refusal to act.

A clear and recent statement of the jurisdictional principles which guide the Court in this matter is found in National Mediation Board v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 55, 402 F.2d 196 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 848, 89 S.Ct. 135, 21 L.Ed.2d 119 (1968). Judge Leventhal, writing for the majority, stated:

The narrow exceptions to the "jurisdictional" bar created by Leedom v. Kyne 358 U.S. 184, 79 S.Ct. 180, 3 L.Ed.2d 210 (1958) and similar cases must be instances of constitutional dimension or gross violation of the statute. The exception inevitably eliminates any strict concept of lack of jurisdiction, since it permits a peek at the merits. The reconciliation of doctrine lies not in concepts but in practicalities. The retention of the doctrine negativing jurisdiction to consider the merits serves to confine the assertion of jurisdiction to cases where the error on the merits is as obvious on the face of the papers as the violation of specific statutory language * * *. 402 F.2d at 205.

See also Deering Milliken, Inc. v. Johnston, 295 F.2d 856 (4th Cir. 1961); American Air Export & Import Co. v. O'Neill, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 221 F.2d 829 (1954); Air Line Dispatchers Ass'n v. National Mediation Board, 89 U.S.App. D.C. 24, 189 F.2d 685 (1951).

Section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 701-06, also appears to contemplate judicial intervention in cases such as this. The scope of review and potential relief under the APA includes "compelling agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed," 5 U.S.C.A. § 706(1), and "holding unlawful and setting aside agency action * * * found to be * * * arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion." 5 U.S.C.A. § 706 (2) (A).

The Court is very much aware that the Board is involved in a subtle, delicate process whenever its mediation services are invoked. Congress recognized that common carriers perform vital public services. It demonstrated its preference for negotiated settlements by establishing, through the Railway Labor Act, a series of steps which must be taken before there may be a strike. The Court also recognizes that time is often a great healer and that no matter how bitter controversies may be, the availability of a mediator may ultimately resolve what appear superficially to be sharp and irreconcilable disputes. Thus, it is only where arbitrary action is patent that the Court will direct the Board to act. This case is one where judicial intervention is warranted for the reasons that will be stated.

We do not have a situation where the Union has refused to mediate. Since March, when the mediator was appointed, there have been 48 mediation sessions involving some 179 hours of talk. In spite of this, some 97 issues remain unresolved. Over recent weeks, progress has been inconsequential as the positions of the...