Metroflight, Inc. v. National Mediation Bd.
| Decision Date | 01 September 1992 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 3:92-CV-604-H. |
| Citation | 820 F. Supp. 288 |
| Parties | METROFLIGHT, INC., Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Hugh E. Hackney, Alfred J. Harper, II, Fulbright & Jaworski, Dallas, TX, E. Scott Smith, Ford & Harrison, Atlanta, GA, for plaintiff.
Theodore Hirt and Pamela Eppli, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Div., Washington, DC, for defendant.
Before the Court are: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, filed May 18, 1992; Declaration of William A. Gill, Jr., Executive Director of the National Mediation Board, and Attachments, filed May 18, 1992 ("Gill Declaration"); Plaintiff's Response, filed June 15, 1992; and Defendant's Reply, filed July 27, 1992.
Plaintiff Metroflight is an airline carrier based in Texas. Defendant, the National Mediation Board ("NMB"), is an administrative body created under the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-188, to investigate and mediate labor disputes affecting rail and air carriers.
On June 4, 1990, pursuant to NMB's regulations, Metroflight notified the NMB of its intent to merge with another carrier, Chaparral Airlines, Inc. Metroflight's mechanics were then represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Airline, Aerospace and Allied Employees, Local Union No. 19 ("the Union"). Chaparral mechanics were unrepresented. Upon the Union's application to represent all mechanics and related employees following the merger, the NMB investigated and determined that an election would be appropriate. See In the Matter of the Merger of Metroflight Airlines, Inc. and Chaparral Airlines, Inc., Gill Decl., Attachment 8.
The election was duly conducted and the ballots counted on December 20, 1990. Just before the counting, however, the Union filed charges with the NMB alleging interference in the election on the part of Metroflight. When the Union lost the vote by 67 to 151, the NMB conducted an investigation of the Union's charges. After considering position statements and affidavits filed by the Union and Metroflight, but without holding a hearing, the NMB found that the carrier had interfered in the first election and ordered a rerun election. See Teamsters v. Metroflight, Gill Decl., Attachment 15.
The NMB further ordered that along with the ballots in the rerun election would be mailed a "Notice to All Employees" ("Notice"). It is the mailing of this Notice which forms the basis of Metroflight's suit against the NMB. The Notice states in relevant part:
After an investigation conducted by the National Mediation Board in which the Carrier and the Union had the opportunity to present statements and evidence, the National Mediation Board found that the Carrier's conduct, taken as a whole, improperly interfered with employees' choice of representative under Section 2 Ninth, of the Act.1 It is unlawful for a carrier to interfere with the organization of its employees.
The Notice was mailed with the ballots and the Union won the rerun election on November 13, 1991. This time Metroflight filed charges alleging unlawful Union activity. In NMB's subsequent investigation, it found that the Union had not interfered in the election. The Union was therefore certified as the authorized bargaining representative for mechanics and related employees on March 20, 1992. Metroflight then filed suit, alleging that the NMB had exceeded its authority under the RLA and violated Metroflight's First and Fifth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. Metroflight asks this Court to set aside NMB's certification of the Union.
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Switchmen's Union of North America v. National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297, 64 S.Ct. 95, 88 L.Ed. 61 (1943), it has been well established that federal court review of NMB decisions is exceedingly limited. In Switchmen's Union, the Court found that Congress intended representational disputes in the transportation field to be decided by the NMB, with no "dragging out of the controversy into other tribunals of law." Id. at 305, 64 S.Ct. at 99. See also Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks v. Ass'n for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees, 380 U.S. 650, 85 S.Ct. 1192, 14 L.Ed.2d 133 (1965) (). The scope of federal court review of NMB decisions and election procedures has been characterized as "one of the narrowest known to the law." Int'l Ass'n of Machinists v. Trans World Airlines, 839 F.2d 809, 811 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820, 109 S.Ct. 62, 102 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988).
The Fifth Circuit has stated the following standard for federal court review of NMB determinations:
First, judicial interdiction will be permitted where a complaining party makes a `substantial showing' of a violation of that party's constitutional rights as a result of the Board's action.... Second, courts may intervene with Board actions which are `in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the Act.'
Russell v. National Mediation Board, 714 F.2d 1332, 1339-40 (5th Cir.1983) (quoting United States v. Feaster, 410 F.2d 1354 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 962, 90 S.Ct. 427, 24 L.Ed.2d 426 (1969)). Thus, in order to determine whether there is jurisdiction to review NMB's actions here, the Court must "peek at the merits" to see whether NMB has violated the RLA or the Constitution. Int'l Ass'n of Machinists v. TWA, 839 F.2d at 812.
The RLA entrusts to the Board the duty to investigate representational disputes upon request by either party, and to determine the will of the employees as to whom their representative will be. 45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth. In determining the appropriate representative, the NMB is empowered "to take a secret ballot of the employees involved, or to utilize any other appropriate method of ascertaining the names of their duly designated and authorized representatives in such manner as shall insure the choice of representatives by the employees without interference, influence, or coercion exercised by the carrier." Id. The NMB has the further express authority to "establish the rules to govern the election...." Id.
Metroflight itself acknowledges that the courts have construed this section "as giving the Board almost unchecked discretion in deciding by what procedure the election will be conducted." Plaintiff's Memorandum at 23. However, Metroflight attempts to cast the NMB's Notice as being not a procedural tool but an adjudication of Metroflight's civil and criminal liability, for which the RLA gives the NMB no authority. Id. at 22. Metroflight further argues that the Notice is "false and misleading" because it "implies not only that the NMB adjudicated a legal violation after a purported fair and full `investigation,' but that it possessed jurisdiction to do so." Id. at 26.
Support for Metroflight's position is scarce. The carrier relies principally on America West Airlines v. National Mediation Board, 743 F.Supp. 693 (D.Ariz.1990), aff'd, 986 F.2d 1252 (9th Cir.1992). At issue in America West was the same "Notice to Employees" as is the subject of the present case. 743 F.Supp. at 695. In America West, after a disputed representation election, the NMB ordered a second election and distribution of the Notice to employees along with the ballots. Id. The airline brought suit to enjoin distribution of the Notice prior to the second election, and the district court granted a preliminary injunction. Id. at 700.
This Court declines to follow the decision in America West because to do so would require it to ignore the standard for obtaining judicial review of NMB actions set forth by the Fifth Circuit in Russell v. National Mediation Board, cited supra. Russell expressly requires a showing that the NMB "egregiously violated a specific prohibition of the Act" before federal court intervention is justified. 714 F.2d at 1340 (emphasis added). In Russell, the NMB refused to process an employee's application to represent his fellow workers. Russell, 714 F.2d at 1341. The Court held that this was a violation of the NMB's clear statutory duty to investigate representational disputes. Id. at 1347. Intervention by the judiciary was necessary to preserve the employees' rights under the RLA to freely choose their representatives. Id. at 1340.
Further support for the proposition that the NMB must violate a specific duty under the RLA before judicial intervention is warranted is found in the Supreme Court's decision in Railway Clerks, cited supra. There, among other issues, the Court rejected a challenge by a carrier to the NMB's choice of a ballot which provided no space for a vote against the union. 380 U.S. at 668, 85 S.Ct. at 1201. The Court held that the "details" of election procedure are left "to the broad discretion of the Board with only the caveat that it `insure' freedom from carrier interference." Id. at 668-69, 85 S.Ct. at 1202. Since the carrier in this case was "unable to point to any specific requirement of a `no union' ballot in the Act," the Court found that the NMB had not exceeded its statutory authority. Id. at 671, 85 S.Ct. at 1203.
As the Second Circuit has pointed out, "inspection of the RLA reveals that there are relatively few commands capable of being violated." Virgin Atlantic Airways v. Nat'l Mediation Board, 956 F.2d 1245, 1250 (2d Cir.1992) (quoting British Airways v. Nat'l Mediation Board, 685 F.2d 52 (2nd Cir. 1982)). In fact, the only NMB behavior found by a circuit other than the Ninth to be egregious enough to accord a federal court jurisdiction, is the complete failure to investigate a representational dispute, as occurred in Russell. Courts have backed the NMB against other types of challenges. See, e.g., Virgin Atlantic, 956 F.2d at 1250 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aerovias De Mexico, S.A. v. National Mediation
...to observe all of the witness interviews it conducted, see id. Tab 26, at 2, and it considered Aeromexico's motion for reconsideration of the NMB decision, see Decl. of Stephen E. Crable ¶¶8, 18; id. Exs. D, L. All of this, contends the NMB, constitutes more than sufficient process to satis......
-
Hunter Distributing Co., Inc. v. Pure Beverage Partners, 1:92CV063-S-D.
... ... for that party that it would effectively deprive it of its day in court." Seattle-First National Bank v. Manges, 900 F.2d 795, 799 (5th Cir.1990) (citing M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15, 92 S.Ct. at ... ...