Norfolk & West. Ry. v. Broth. of R.R. Signalmen
| Decision Date | 12 May 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A. 97-740-R.,No. Civ.A. 98-145-R.,Civ.A. 97-740-R.,Civ.A. 98-145-R. |
| Citation | 11 F.Supp.2d 833 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
| Parties | NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, CSX Transportation Inc., and Consolidated Rail Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN, American Train Dispatchers Department of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, National Conference of Firemen & Oilers, and Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Defendants. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD SIGNALMEN, Consolidated Counterclaimant, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Norfolk Southern Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, and Norfolk and Western Railway Company, Consolidated Counterdefendants. |
Sara Bugbee Winn, Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, P.L.C., Roanoke, VA, William B. Poff, Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove, P.L.C., Roanoke, VA, Jeffrey S. Berlin, Mark E. Martin, Sidley & Austin, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs Norfolk and Western Ry. Co, Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.
Ronald M. Johnson, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., Washington, DC, William Edward Potts, Jr., Agin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Washington, DC, for CSX Transportation, Inc., Plaintiff.
Arthur Patrick Strickland, Arthur P. Strickland, P.C., Roanoke, VA, for Consolidated Rail Corporation, plaintiff.
John O'B. Clarke, Jr., Melissa Boys Kirgis, Highsaw, Mahoney & Clarke, P.C., Washington, DC, for Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, American Train Dispatchers Department of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, National Conference of Firemen & Oilers, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, defendants.
Katherine Cabell Londos, Wooten & Hart, P.C., Roanoke, VA, Robert A. Mullen, Wooten & Hart, Roanoke, VA, Harold A. Ross, Ross & Kraushaar Co., L.P.A., Cleveland, OH, for Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, Defendants.
This matter arises from a dispute between railroads and unions concerning the proposed purchase and division of Consolidated Rail Corporation ("Conrail"). The primary dispute is over whether, as the defendant unions propose, the impact on labor of railroad consolidations overseen by the Surface Transportation Board ("STB")1 pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Act ("ICA"), 49 U.S.C. §§ 10101 et seq., may be subject to resolution via the statutory method provided in the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq., even when the current labor agreements contain moratorium clauses prohibiting alteration for a specified period, or whether, as the plaintiff railroads propose, the STB provides the exclusive forum for resolution of such labor disputes. The RLA permits unions to resort to self help, such as a strike, if the parties cannot come to final agreement, whereas the STB routinely requires binding arbitration of such disputes.
The plaintiff railroads filed this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendant unions, primarily asking the Court to declare that the STB has exclusive jurisdiction over the terms of the proposed transaction, including modifications to labor agreements, and to bar the unions from proceeding under the RLA or from otherwise resorting to self help. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen ("BRS"), a defendant in this action, filed an action concerning the same transaction and controversy in the Western District of Pennsylvania, No. 97-1999. That action was subsequently transferred to this Court, docketed as No. 98-145-R, and consolidated with the instant case, No. 97-740-R, as a compulsory counterclaim to plaintiff railroads' complaint. BRS likewise seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the Court to declare that the railroads have an RLA obligation to bargain over BRS' section 6 notices, and to direct the railroads to bargain accordingly. The Court has jurisdiction over the consolidated civil actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 because federal questions arising under the RLA and the ICA are presented, and the Declaratory Judgment Act authorizes declaratory and injunctive relief, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
This matter is before the Court on the following motions: (a) motion to dismiss by consolidated counterdefendant Norfolk Southern Corporation ("NSC"); (b) motion to dismiss Counts II, III, and IV by defendants American Train Dispatchers Department of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers ("ATDD"), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("IBEW"), National Conference of Firemen & Oilers ("NCF & O"), and Sheet Metal Workers International Association ("SMWIA"); (c) motion for partial summary judgment by plaintiffs Norfolk and Western Railway Company ("N & W"), Norfolk Southern Railway Company ("NSR"), CSX Transportation Inc. ("CSXT"), and Conrail; (d) consolidated cross motion for summary judgment and preliminary injunction by defendant Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen ("BRS"); (e) cross motion for summary judgment by defendants ATDD, IBEW, NCF & O, and SMWIA; and (f) motion to sever by defendant BRS.
On June 23, 1997, NSR, CSXT, Conrail and their parent corporations jointly filed an application with the STB seeking authorization for the acquisition and division of Conrail. The application proposes that a portion of Conrail be operated as part of NSR's rail system, a portion of Conrail be operated as part of CSXT's rail system, and a smaller portion of Conrail be operated by Conrail as "shared assets" for the benefit of both NSR and CSXT. The transaction is hereinafter referred to as the "Conrail transaction." The STB has announced that it will issue its formal decision in the matter on June 8, 1998.
One of the factors the ICA requires the STB to consider and provide is protection of employees affected by the proposed transaction. 49 U.S.C. § 11326(a). Accordingly, the STB routinely imposes the New York Dock employee protective conditions on approved transactions. New York Dock Ry. — Control — Brooklyn Eastern Dist. Terminal, 360 I.C.C. 60, aff'd sub nom., New York Dock Ry. v. United States, 609 F.2d 83 (2nd Cir.1979). Among other terms, the New York Dock conditions protect affected employee's wages and fringe benefits for up to six years, even if there is no railroad work for the employee to perform.
The conditions also specify an expedited procedure for reaching negotiated or arbitrated agreements with labor unions to cover implementation of an STB-approved transaction. Article 1, Section 4 of the conditions requires that, before workforces can be consolidated, the participating railroads must give 90 days advance notice to the labor union representing affected employees and attempt to negotiate an agreement with the union. If an implementing agreement cannot be reached through negotiations within a specified period, either party may invoke arbitration under the New York Dock conditions, for the purpose of having an arbitrator impose an appropriate implementing agreement. Such arbitration is mandatory, and under Article 1, Section 4 of New York Dock, the arbitrator's decision is "final, binding, and conclusive...." 360 I.C.C. at 85. However, because an arbitrator in such a proceeding acts as an extension of the STB, the arbitrator's decision imposing an implementing agreement is subject to review by the STB. 49 C.F.R. § 1115.8. Either party may seek STB review, and then review of the STB's decision by a court of appeals under the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2342(5).
New York Dock implementing agreements are, among other things, the mechanism for consolidating employees from different railroads under one railroad's collective bargaining agreements. The railroads stated in their application that, if the STB approves the Conrail transaction and imposes the standard New York Dock conditions, the railroads would then seek to negotiate and reach implementing agreements with the unions pursuant to the New York Dock conditions. Although several unions have entered voluntary discussions with the railroads regarding implementing agreements for the proposed Conrail transaction, the STB has not yet granted approval to the Conrail transaction. Accordingly, the railroads have not yet served any formal notices invoking Article 1, Section 4 of the New York Dock conditions to seek negotiation of implementing agreements for the Conrail transaction.
The defendant unions, acting jointly with other unions under the name "Allied Rail Unions" ("ARU"), filed Comments in opposition to the Conrail transaction with the STB on October 21, 1997. In these Comments, the ARU asserted that implementation of the anticipated changes in labor agreements "outside RLA processes would violate both the RLA and the ICCTA." The ARU further stated, "Indeed unions would respond to such change by striking and by submitting claims for compensation under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346." ARU Comments at 57. The ARU explained,
several of the ARU organizations intend to utilize the Railway Labor Act's collective bargaining processes to deal with the impact of the proposed transactions on employees they represent.... Those organization[s] also serve notice on the Applicants that they will consider any attempt to change unilaterally existing agreements or other collective bargaining rights as justifying the resort to self-help.
Under the RLA, disputes that arise between a railroad and its employees are divided into two categories. Disputes arising from grievances or under the collective bargaining agreement are subject to compulsory arbitration. RLA § 3, 45 U.S.C. § 153. The courts have labeled these disputes "minor." During arbitration of a "minor" dispute, the employer may make...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norfolk and Western Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood of R.R. Signalmen
...transaction except as specifically authorized by the STB or the [Interstate Commerce Act]." Norfolk and Western Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood of R.R. Signalmen, 11 F.Supp.2d 833, 849 (W.D.Va.1998). Two months after entry of judgment in the district court, on July 20, 1998, the STB approved the tra......
-
WCC Cable, Inc. v. G4S Tech. LLC
...of one consolidated defendant "were taken as a counterclaim" in the consolidated action); see also Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Bhd. of R.R. Signalmen, 11 F. Supp. 2d 833, 836 (W.D. Va. 1998) ("That action was subsequently transferred to this Court, docketed . . . , and consolidated with the ins......