Lamoille Valley R. Co. v. National Mediation Bd., Civ. A. No. 81-135.

• Decision Date: 04 May 1982
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 81-135.
• Citation: 539 F. Supp. 237
• Parties: LAMOILLE VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Vermont

539 F. Supp. 237

LAMOILLE VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD.

Civ. A. No. 81-135.

United States District Court, D. Vermont.

May 4, 1982.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Gary H. Barnes, Downs, Rachlin & Martin, Burlington, Vt., for plaintiff.

P. Scott McGee, Asst. U. S. Atty., District of Vermont, Burlington, Vt., Sandra M. Schraibman, and R. Lawrence Dessem, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant; Ronald M. Etters, Nat. Mediation Bd., Washington, D. C., of counsel.

OPINION AND ORDER

COFFRIN, District Judge.

In this civil action, plaintiff Lamoille Valley Railroad Company (Railroad) challenges certain actions of defendant National Mediation Board (NMB or Board) under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. Plaintiff contends that defendant failed to perform its statutory duty to investigate a representation dispute and certify a representative, as required by § 2 Ninth of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 152 Ninth. Plaintiff therefore seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction compelling defendant to perform its duty to resolve the alleged representation dispute in accordance with the statute.

Defendant moves to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment in its favor. It asserts that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and that the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons stated below, we grant defendant's motion for summary judgment.

I. Background

The essential facts are not in dispute. In February 1981, the Board received from Mr. William Farquharson an Application for Investigation of Representation Dispute by means of which Mr. Farquharson sought Board certification as the Lamoille Valley Railroad mechanics' representative under § 2 Ninth. In the application, Mr. Farquharson identified himself as a mechanical foreman for the Railroad and listed no return address other than the Railroad.¹

By letter dated February 9, 1981, the Executive Secretary of the Board sent notice of the application for certification to the Railroad, and to the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada (the existing representative of the Railroad mechanics).² The letter stated that a Board designee would be assigned to investigate the dispute, and requested preliminary information from the Railroad relative to the investigation.

On February 10, 1981, the Executive Secretary of the Board contacted Mr. Farquharson, acknowledging receipt of the application and stating that the Board would withhold processing of the application for 90 days pending Mr. Farquharson's compliance with the reporting and disclosure requirements of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. The applicant was informed that failure to comply with such requirements would result in dismissal of his application.³

Mr. Farquharson never responded to the letter of February 10. On May 14, 1981, after the expiration of the 90 day period, the Board rendered its final decision on the Farquharson application. The Board found that the applicant was not qualified to be certified as an employee representative under § 1 Sixth of the RLA,⁴ and dismissed the application.⁵

The present action was filed on May 7, 1981. In its original complaint, the Railroad alleged that the Board had unlawfully failed to investigate and resolve a representation dispute. On June 19, 1981, subsequent to the issuance of the Board's final determination on the Farquharson application, the Railroad amended its complaint to challenge the investigation and the Board's failure to certify a representative. William Farquharson is not, and never has been, a party to this action.

The defendant contends that its conduct in this matter is not subject to judicial review. It further asserts that plaintiff lacks standing to pursue its cause. We must initially determine whether, or to what extent, the conduct of the Board is subject to review by this court.

II. Reviewability

Section 2 Ninth of the Railway Labor Act⁶ vests in the National Mediation Board the power and duty to investigate "any dispute ... among a carrier's employees as to who are the representatives of such employees" and to certify to the parties and to the carrier the name of the true representative. The starting point for assessing the role of the courts in representation dispute matters is Switchmen's Union of North America v. NMB, 320 U.S. 297, 64 S.Ct. 95, 88 L.Ed. 61 (1943) ("Switchmen's Union") and its two companion cases.⁷

The Switchmen's Union trilogy established that representation disputes are committed to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board. The continuing vitality of the Switchmen's Union doctrine was assured in Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks v. Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees, 380 U.S. 650, 85 S.Ct. 1192, 14 L.Ed.2d 133 (1965) ("Railway Clerks"). See Air Line Pilots Association, International v. Texas International Airlines, Inc., 656 F.2d 16, 20 n.6 (2d Cir. 1981); Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 275 F.Supp. 986, 993 (S.D.N.Y.1967), aff'd per curiam sub nom. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 404 F.2d 938 (2d Cir. 1969).

However, the law yields exceptions to its most steadfast rules. While the prohibition against judicial intervention in representation disputes is "substantially total,"⁸ review may be allowed (1) to neutralize an order of the Board made in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition of the Act; or (2) to compel performance by the Board of its statutorily mandated duties.⁹See Railway Clerks, 380 U.S. 650, 85 S.Ct. 1192, 14 L.Ed.2d 133; WES Chapter Flight Engineers' International Association, AFL-CIO v. NMB, 314 F.2d 234, 236 (D.C.Cir.1962); Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association v. United Airlines, Inc., 406 F.Supp. 492, 500 (N.D.Cal. 1976).

The Board's statutory duty to investigate representation disputes is judicially enforceable, although the scope of judicial inquiry is exceedingly narrow: Board action is reviewable only to the extent that it bears on the question of whether the Board performed its statutory mandate. Railway Clerks, 380 U.S. at 661, 85 S.Ct. at 1198. Thus, once a court determines that the Board has met its statutory obligation to investigate the dispute, the court lacks authority to inquire further into the kind, quality, or results of such investigation. International In-Flight Catering Co., Ltd. v. NMB, 555 F.2d 712, 717 (9th Cir. 1977); Hawaiian Air Lines, Inc. v. NMB, 659 F.2d 1088 (D.Haw.1981), aff'd 107 LRRM 3352 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 102 S.Ct. 1978, 72 L.Ed.2d 445 (1982); see Sedalia-Marshall-Boonville Stage Line, Inc. v. NMB, 574 F.2d 394, 398 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 881, 99 S.Ct. 218, 58 L.Ed.2d 193 (1978); Ruby v. American Airlines, Inc., 323 F.2d 248, 255 (2d Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 913, 84 S.Ct. 658, 11 L.Ed.2d 611 (1964). Otherwise stated, the duty to investigate is a mandate "to make such investigation as the nature of the case requires," and the Board has considerable discretion in selecting the methods and procedures that are employed in each case. Railway Clerks, 380 U.S. at 662 & n.3, 85 S.Ct. at 1198 n.3; Sedalia-Marshall-Boonville Stage Line, 574 F.2d at 397-98; Local 732, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. NMB, 438 F.Supp. 1357, 1364 (S.D. N.Y.1977).

The threshold question before this court is whether there exists a "dispute" within the meaning of § 2 Ninth. Summit Airlines, Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 295, 628 F.2d 787, 793 (2d Cir. 1980).¹⁰ Rowland K. Quinn, Jr., the Executive Secretary of the Board, avers by declaration that, in his application, Mr. Farquharson asserted that a dispute had arisen among the mechanics of the Railroad concerning their representation. Since the "dispute" requirement is satisfied even when only one union seeks certification,¹¹ it may be presumed that a "dispute" arises where an incumbent representative is challenged by an individual or entity seeking certification, as in the case at bar.¹²

It also appears that filing an application constitutes a request to investigate the dispute. See 29 C.F.R. § 1203.2 (1981). We therefore conclude that a "party"¹³ to a representation dispute requested an investigation within the meaning of § 2 Ninth of the RLA.

The Railroad contends that this matter is subject to review on the ground that an investigation was initiated but never completed by the Board. The Railroad charges that the investigation was suspended as a result of the Board's unlawful insistence that the applicant comply with filing requirements set forth in the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. Furthermore, the Railroad asserts, even were the filing requirements valid, they could not properly be imposed since the Board has violated a provision of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., by following an unpublished rule of procedure; see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1)(B).

The Board concedes that the investigation was terminated as a result of the applicant's refusal to comply with the reporting requirements of the LMRDA.¹⁴ However, the Executive Secretary of the Board declares that the reporting requirement was imposed in accordance with its policy in handling representation applications from individual carrier employees,¹⁵ a policy designed to assure the Board that the individual is a bona fide applicant and that his selection as a representative would be without carrier interference, influence, or coercion, in harmony with the purposes of the RLA.¹⁶ The Board notes that the applicant was given notice of, and ample opportunity to comply with, the LMRDA requirements, and that he neither complied with nor responded to such notice.

We must reject plaintiff's argument regarding the...