Employee Advocacy Group That Preceded Teamsters Was Not an RLA Representative: Ninth Circuit | Practical Law

Employee Advocacy Group That Preceded Teamsters Was Not an RLA Representative: Ninth Circuit | Practical Law

In International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Allegiant Air, LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that federal district courts have jurisdiction to decide whether an employee advocacy group that previously represented employees was a valid representative under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), and that the RLA's jurisdictional bar does not apply to this issue. The court found that the advocacy group that had previously represented airline pilots had not been a proper representative under the RLA because it had not sought certification by the National Mediation Board (NMB) or through voluntary recognition by the airline.

Employee Advocacy Group That Preceded Teamsters Was Not an RLA Representative: Ninth Circuit

by Practical Law Labor & Employment
Published on 15 Jun 2015 • USA (National/Federal)
In International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Allegiant Air, LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that federal district courts have jurisdiction to decide whether an employee advocacy group that previously represented employees was a valid representative under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), and that the RLA's jurisdictional bar does not apply to this issue. The court found that the advocacy group that had previously represented airline pilots had not been a proper representative under the RLA because it had not sought certification by the National Mediation Board (NMB) or through voluntary recognition by the airline.
On June 8, 2015, in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Allegiant Air, LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that:
  • Federal district courts have jurisdiction to decide whether an advocacy group that previously represented employees was a valid representative under the Railway Labor Act (RLA).
  • The RLA's jurisdictional bar does not apply to this issue.
The court found that an advocacy group that had previously represented an airline's pilots had not been a proper representative under the RLA because it had not sought certification by the National Mediation Board (NMB) or through voluntary recognition by the airline. As a result, certain work rules negotiated by the advocacy group on the pilots' behalf did not constitute a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The court vacated an injunction granted to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (union) representing the pilots, because the RLA did not preclude the airline from making changes to the work rules (or require the airline to maintain the status quo) during negotiations on an initial labor agreement. (Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Airlines Div. v. Allegiant Air, LLC, No. 14-16465, (9th Cir. June 8, 2015).)

Background

In 2004, employees of Allegiant Air organized an advocacy group to negotiate on behalf of the airline's pilots. The Allegiant Air Pilots Advocacy Group (AAPAG) negotiated with Allegiant and reached agreement on several documents outlining the airline's employment policies and work rules (Pilot Work Rules). In 2012, the union was certified by the NMB as the pilots' bargaining representative under the RLA. Soon after, Allegiant changed some Pilot Work Rules without seeking union input or approval. The union sought a preliminary injunction in district court, prohibiting Allegiant from making any changes to the Pilot Work Rules while a new contract was being negotiated. The district court granted the preliminary injunction, finding that:
  • It had jurisdiction to decide the issue of whether AAPAG was a proper representative under the RLA.
  • The advocacy group was indeed a proper representative.
Allegiant appealed, arguing that:
  • The district court did not have jurisdiction to determine whether AAPAG was a proper representative under the RLA.
  • Even if the district court had jurisdiction, it improperly granted the injunction.

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit noted that:
  • Under the RLA:
    • employees may designate a representative to negotiate agreements concerning pay rates, work rules and working conditions; and
    • when a conflict arises "among a carrier' employees as to who are the representatives of such employees," the NMB has the sole power to determine whether a group is a valid representative.
    (45 U.S.C. § 152.)
  • Federal courts may not review the NMB's certification decision or independently determine whether a group represents employees (Switchmen's Union of N. Am. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 320 U.S. 297, 300 (1943)).
  • Once a representative and a carrier have reached an agreement concerning pay rates, work rules and working conditions, the RLA requires that a party seeking to change an agreement give advance written notice (45 U.S.C. § 156).
The Ninth Circuit rejected Allegiant's argument that the district court did not have jurisdiction in the case, holding that district courts are not barred from determining whether a previous advocacy group was a valid representative under the RLA. The Ninth Circuit found that:
  • The parties had not cited any case in which a court had determined the status of a past advocate, making this an issue of first impression.
  • The jurisdictional bar precluding federal courts from deciding whether a group is a valid representative under the RLA did not apply in this case because there was no dispute that the union was the pilots' current representative (45 U.S.C. § 152). The NMB had already certified the union as the pilots' representative under the RLA, and no competing union was vying for the right to be the pilots' representative. Therefore, this case did not raise a representation dispute that federal courts are barred from addressing.
  • Deciding whether AAPAG had been a valid representative for the pilots in the past would not require Allegiant to deal with AAPAG in the present or future.
The Ninth Circuit nevertheless vacated the injunction, finding that:
  • AAPAG was not a valid RLA representative for the airline pilots because AAPAG had not:
    • presented itself as an RLA representative when it negotiated with Allegiant; or
    • sought certification by the NMB or voluntary recognition by Allegiant.
    (45 U.S.C. § 151; N.L.R.B. v. Triple C Maint., Inc., 219 F.3d 1147, 1153 (10th Cir. 2000) (describing voluntary recognition under the National Labor Relations Act).)
  • Since AAPAG was not a valid RLA representative, the Pilot Work Rules negotiated by AAPAG on the pilots' behalf did not constitute a CBA.
  • The negotiations between the union and Allegiant were for an initial CBA. Therefore, Allegiant did not have an obligation under the RLA to maintain the status quo while the initial CBA was being negotiated.
The Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction and remanded the case to allow the union and Allegiant to continue negotiating an initial CBA.

Practical Implications

In what it describes as a matter of first impression, the Ninth Circuit's decision in Teamsters holds that a federal court has jurisdiction to determine the status of a past advocate (here, an employee advocacy group), as distinguished from adjudicating a present dispute over whether a current group (or which of multiple competing groups) is the valid RLA representative. Adjudicating a present dispute is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NMB. This decision also indicates the factors that courts should examine to determine whether a previous advocacy group was a valid RLA representative. These factors are also helpful for employers to use to determine whether an employee advocacy group semi-dressed as a union is actually a proper RLA representative.