Reference no: EM131280965
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) proposed the sale of approximately 290 miles of BNSF's rail line to the New Mexico Department of Transportation. New Mexico sought to obtain the rail line as part of a plan to provide commuter rail service between Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and other points within the state. Under the terms of sale, New Mexico would obtain ownership of BNSF's rail lines, but reserve to BNSF a concurrent freight easement on the lines.
New Mexico would also take over maintenance responsibilities of the right-of-way, an obligation previously belonging to BNSF. In an effort to prevent New Mexico from assuming the maintenance responsibilities, two union organizations representing rail workers who had previously performed the maintenance work sued. They contended that the assignment of the maintenance obligations (1) violated § 2, Seventh of the Railway Labor Act and (2) breached the collective bargaining agreement between the workers and BNSF. The district court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction and the unions appealed.] TYMKOVICH, C.J. ... Analysis On appeal, the rail workers argue the district court erred in concluding the Adjustment Board has exclusive jurisdiction over their claims....
A. Legal Framework for Resolving RLA Disputes The RLA provides a comprehensive and mandatory framework for resolving labor disputes under collective bargaining agreements. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 252 ... (1994). It aims "to encourage collective bargaining by railroads and their employees in order to prevent, if possible, wasteful strikes and interruptions of interstate commerce." United Transp. Union v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 528 F.3d 674, 677-678 (9th Cir. 2008).... The RLA sets forth two provisions relevant to the workers' claims. The first is ... § 2, Seventh. Under this provision, no carrier "shall change the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions of its employees, as a class, as embodied in agreements except in the manner prescribed in such agreements or in § 6 of [the RLA]." Pursuant to § 6, ... carriers must give notice of major changes to pay, rules, or working conditions and, if arbitration is requested, maintain the status quo ante during the proceedings. The rail workers contend BNSF breached the "scope of work" provisions contained in its collective bargaining agreement and thereby violated § 2, Seventh by improperly contracting the maintenance responsibilities on the rail lines to New Mexico. RLA disputes can be resolved either in federal court or in the Adjustment Board through binding arbitration. To determine which forum is appropriate in the first instance, the Supreme Court has created a twopart classification system: If a dispute is "major," it is not subject to Adjustment Board arbitration and should be resolved in federal court. If a dispute is "minor," binding arbitration before the Adjustment Board is mandatory. This appeal requires us to determine whether the disagreement between the rail workers and BNSF qualifies as a major or minor dispute.
B. Major and Minor Disputes The RLA provides little guidance regarding how to determine whether a dispute is major or minor, but a series of well-established Supreme Court cases have laid out a framework for answering this question. See Cons. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n, 491 U.S. 299 (1989) ("Conrail"); Norris, 512 U.S. at 252-57. "Major disputes relate to the formation of collective [bargaining] agreements," Norris, 512 U.S. at 252 (quotations omitted). These disputes relate to contract formation and arise where there is no such agreement or where it is sought to change the terms of one, and therefore the issue is not whether an existing agreement controls the controversy. They look to the acquisition of rights for the future, not to assertion of rights claimed to have vested in the past. Conrail, 491 U.S. at 302 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
Thus, "major disputes seek to create contractual rights," Id. In contrast, "minor disputes" seek to "enforce [contractual rights]," Id. They arise "out of the interpretation or application of" existing collective bargaining agreements, Id. at 303.... The Supreme Court has stressed that the relative importance of a case does not determine whether it qualifies as a major or minor dispute, Conrail, 491 U.S. at 305. Rather, we look to "whether a claim has been made that the terms of an existing agreement either establish or refute the presence of a right to take the disputed action. The distinguishing feature of such a case is that the dispute may be conclusively resolved by interpreting the existing agreement," Id.... The Supreme Court has emphasized the primary importance of labor arbitration under the RLA.
To that end, the default position for courts is to deem a dispute as minor if it even remotely touches on the terms of the relevant collective bargaining agreement. "[W]hen in doubt" the courts are to "construe disputes as minor" [citation omitted]. Indeed, a party bears a "relatively light burden" in establishing exclusive jurisdiction in the Adjustment Board under the RLA, Conrail, 491 U.S. at 307. To meet this burden, a party need only show that the contested action is "arguably justified" by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.... The Court has identified a number of factors to consider in determining whether either party's claim is "arguably justified." We look first and primarily, of course, to both the express and implied provisions of the collective bargaining agreement, Conrail, 491 U.S. at 320.... Of equal importance is the parties' "practice, usage and custom" in negotiating and operating under applicable labor agreements. Id. at 311.
Other non-exclusive factors arising from cases applying Conrail include:-
(1) arbitration decisions interpreting the bargaining agreement,
(2) arbitration decisions interpreting similar language in other bargaining agreements,
(3) the absence of a term prohibiting the carrier's action,
(4) industry practice,
(5) the intent behind and nature of the actions giving rise to the dispute,
(6) any relevant amendments or side letters, and
(7) unsuccessful attempts to "obtain through bargaining rights the carrier later contended it possessed," ABA, THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, 389-93 (2d ed. 2005). ***
C. The Dispute Here Is Minor ... First, the CBA supports BNSF's position. The CBA places no restrictions on the company's right to sell rail lines. Nor does the CBA explicitly establish that BNSF is obligated to continue using its employees to maintain lines BNSF has sold but over which it retains a freight easement and common carrier obligations. Second, "practice, usage and custom," Conrail, 491 U.S. at 311, support the conclusion that BNSF's position is "arguably justified" by the CBA.... The record shows, for example, that BNSF has previously sold properties to third parties and ceded its maintenance obligations.
For example, in the mid-1990s, BNSF sold a right-of-way to public agencies in California, retained an exclusive freight easement over the lines, but was no longer responsible for maintaining the track, ...In sum, the dispute here meets Conrail's "arguably justified" standard. Under the CBA and in light of the relevant factors that guide our inquiry, BNSF arguably had the authority to sell the rail lines at issue and to include in that sale the responsibility to maintain the lines-reducing union maintenance jobs- despite retaining a freight easement and common carrier obligations. BNSF's view of the CBA is sufficiently reasonable to meet its "relatively light burden" under Conrail, ...
Case Questions
1. Two forums exist to resolve RLA disputes, the federal courts and arbitration. Explain the broad classification system used to determine which forum is appropriate to solve the controversy.
2. Explain the procedures used to resolve major and minor disputes under the RLA.
3. How did the court decide this case?