RLA Requires Non-unionized Carrier Employees to Strive to Settle Disputes Before Striking; Strike Injunction Proper: Ninth Circuit | Practical Law

RLA Requires Non-unionized Carrier Employees to Strive to Settle Disputes Before Striking; Strike Injunction Proper: Ninth Circuit | Practical Law

In Aircraft Service International Inc. v. Teamsters Local 117, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that non-unionized carrier employees of an aircraft refueling employer, which was a carrier employer under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), breached their duty under Section 2 First of the RLA by announcing an intention to strike before striving to settle all disputes under the RLA's special dispute resolution provisions.

RLA Requires Non-unionized Carrier Employees to Strive to Settle Disputes Before Striking; Strike Injunction Proper: Ninth Circuit

by Practical Law Labor & Employment
Published on 15 Jan 2014 • USA (National/Federal)
In Aircraft Service International Inc. v. Teamsters Local 117, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that non-unionized carrier employees of an aircraft refueling employer, which was a carrier employer under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), breached their duty under Section 2 First of the RLA by announcing an intention to strike before striving to settle all disputes under the RLA's special dispute resolution provisions.
In Aircraft Service International Inc. v. Teamsters Local 117, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment that non-unionized carrier employees of an aircraft refueling employer, which was a carrier employer under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), breached their duty under Section 2 First of the RLA by announcing an intention to strike before striving to settle all disputes under the RLA's special dispute resolution provisions (12-36026, (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2014)).

Background

Air Craft Service International, Inc. dba Air Craft Service International Group (ASIG) refuels 75% of planes at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac). In September 2012, ASIG suspended an employee, Popescu, for alleged inappropriate behavior. However, Popescu and other employees argued that the suspension was in retaliation for workplace safety leadership. ASIG employees, with "Working Washington" (a labor advocacy group), lobbied for Popescu's reinstatement. After two weeks of failed efforts, the employees planned an eight hour strike. In October 2012, Working Washington announced at a press conference the employees' intention to strike. Following the announcement, ASIG filed a complaint in district court requesting a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and declaratory judgment for a permanent injunction to enjoin the strike as unlawful under the RLA. The district court:
  • Issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting defendants from striking or encouraging a strike at Sea-Tac.
  • After a full hearing:
    • concluded that preliminary strike injunctive relief was proper; and
    • enjoined employees and advocates from among other things, striking or encouraging others to strike.
Popescu, Working Washington and Jonathan Rosenblum (Working Washington's Campaign Director) appealed the temporary restraining order and preliminary strike injunction. In the appeal, they:
  • Challenged whether the Norris-LaGuardia Act (NLA) precluded the district court from enjoining a strike growing from a labor dispute.
  • Contended that the injunction infringed on their First Amendment rights.

Outcome

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that:
  • The employees breached their duty under Section 2 First of the RLA.
  • The district court did not abuse its discretion when either:
    • exercising jurisdiction over this dispute; or
    • enjoining the employees' strike actions.
The Ninth Circuit found that:
  • The provisions of the NLA denying federal court's jurisdiction to enjoin strikes growing out of any labor dispute does not preclude federal courts from enjoining strikes that violate the RLA.
  • Congress enacted the RLA to minimize interruptions to transport services and interstate commerce caused by labor disputes between carriers and carrier employees, including the airline industry.
  • Section 2 First of the RLA imposes on all carrier employees the duty to "exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, and to settle all disputes, …. in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier…" Striking without even attempting to appoint a representative and collectively bargain violates this duty. (45 U.S.C. § 152 First.)
  • Section 2 First of the RLA:
    • imposes an independent, mandatory duty enforceable by the courts; and
    • clearly states that employees have an obligation to "settle all disputes", and they therefore have a clear duty to make agreements, not just maintain preexisting ones.
  • Section 2 First is applicable to all RLA-covered carriers' employees. Congress intended that all carrier employees contemplating collective action fell under the RLA's procedures, whether unionized or not.
  • The strike injunction did not violate the First Amendment because:
    • the Supreme Court finds no First Amendment protection attached to actions that violate national labor laws (Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. NLRB, 341 U.S. 694 (1951));
    • the injunction followed the substantial government interest in keeping Sea-Tac operating; and
    • the injunction did not preclude the defendants from exercising First Amendment Rights in ways other than striking.
Judge M. Smith dissented, contending that the injunction should be vacated because:
  • The employees violated no express provision of the RLA.
  • Before seeking an injunction, the employer failed to first make all reasonable efforts to settle the parties' dispute, as Section 8 of the NLA requires.

Practical Implications

The RLA imposes a duty non only on unionized but also non-unionized rail and air carrier employees to engage in the RLA's labor dispute resolution procedures before resorting to strike action. This case provides useful analysis of the interrelation of the RLA and the NLA and precedent for obtaining strike injunctions against rail and air carrier employees.
UPDATE: The Ninth Circuit reheard this case en banc and vacated the injunction (see Legal Update, Section 8 of Norris-LaGuardia Act Limits Injunctions in RLA Disputes: Ninth Circuit).