Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
Employee's Termination Through Alleged Railway Mismanagement Claim Was Not Preempted by the RLA: Ninth Circuit
Practical Law Legal Update 6-566-1346 (Approx. 5 pages)
Employee's Termination Through Alleged Railway Mismanagement Claim Was Not Preempted by the RLA: Ninth Circuit
by Practical Law Labor & Employment
| Published on 28 Apr 2014 • Montana |
In Wolfe v. BNSF Railway Company, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a union-represented employee's claim under Montana law concerning his railway company employer's alleged conduct leading to a head-on collision between a hi-rail truck the employee was driving and a freight train was independent of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and does not require interpretation of the CBA and therefore is not preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA).
On April 23, 2014, in Wolfe v. BNSF Railway Company, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a union-represented employee's claim under Montana law concerning his railway company employer's alleged conduct leading to a head-on collision between a hi-rail truck the employee was driving and a freight train was not preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The court held that the right of railway employees to sue on the basis of negligence or mismanagement resulting in termination is undoubtedly recognized in Montana under Section 39-2-703(1) of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA) and that the claim was sufficiently independent of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that it would not require interpretation of the CBA. (12-35054, (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2014).)
Background
Wolfe was a long-term, union-represented employee of BNSF Railway Company (BNSF). In 2008, Wolfe worked for BNSF in Montana as a track inspector, for which he was provided a hi-rail truck. The BNSF mechanic who provided the truck had previously complained about its poor condition to BNSF, but provided it to Wolfe because it was the only one available.
In December 2008, Wolfe requested permission from the dispatcher to go east on a particular track. However, the dispatcher misheard and assumed that Wolfe wanted to go west, which he verbally approved. Wolfe traveled east and encountered a freight train head-on. Although Wolfe jumped off and was not physically injured, the freight truck was damaged.
Under Rule 40 of the union's CBA with BNSF, an employee who has worked 60 days or more (as Wolfe had) "will not be disciplined or dismissed until after a fair and impartial investigation has been held." Under Rule 40, BNSF conducted two formal investigations to determine whether Wolfe failed to:
- Activate the truck's Hi-rail Limits Compliance System (HLCS) (GPS system identifying where vehicles are on the tracks).
- Operate within the limits of his track authority at the time of the accident.
After the investigations, BNSF:
- Determined that Wolfe committed the alleged misconduct.
- Gave Wolfe a 30-day suspension for his failure to activate the HLCS.
- Dismissed Wolfe for his failure to have main track authority.
Wolfe challenged his dismissal. His union referred the grievance to the National Railroad Adjustment Board which:
- Determined that BNSF proved that Wolfe failed to engage his HLCS and violated his track authority.
- Affirmed that Wolfe's 30-day suspension for the HLCS violation was reasonable.
- Reduced Wolfe's dismissal to a long-term suspension because it found that dismissal was too severe a penalty for the track authority violation.
- Ordered that Wolfe be reinstated with his seniority unimpaired, but decided that he was not entitled to backpay.
Wolfe filed a complaint in Montana state court asserting two claims under Section 39-2-703 of the MCA that:
- BNSF's mismanagement and negligence of its employees caused the train collision.
- BNSF mismanaged the subsequent investigation and disciplinary proceedings.
BNSF filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Wolfe's state law claims were preempted by the RLA. The district court granted the motion, finding that Wolfe's claims were preempted because the facts surrounding Wolfe's claims appeared to be intertwined with the CBA-controlled grievance procedures. Wolfe appealed to the Ninth Circuit:
- Conceding that his claim challenging the BNSF's CBA-governed investigation and disciplinary proceedings was preempted by the RLA.
- Contending that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on Wolfe's Montana-law claim against BNSF in connection with the alleged negligence and mismanagement causing the collision.
Outcome
The Ninth Circuit held that:
- Wolfe's state law claim under Section 39-2-703 of the MCA concerning BNSF's conduct leading to the collision is independent of the CBA and does not require its interpretation. Therefore, the claim is not preempted by the RLA.
- The right of railway employees to sue on the basis of negligence or mismanagement resulting in termination is undoubtedly recognized in Montana under Section 39-2-703(1) of the MCA.
- Because it found that Wolfe's claim based on conduct relating to the collision should be reinstated, his punitive damages claim should also be reinstated.
In reaching its conclusion, the Ninth Circuit found that:
- The RLA requires arbitration for two classes of disputes concerning "rates of pay, rules or working conditions:"
- major disputes, which concern the formation or negotiation of CBAs; and
- minor disputes, which concern controversies over the meaning of an existing CBA in a particular fact situation.
- The parties agree that Wolfe's claim is only preempted if the conflict over the collision is a minor dispute. BNSF bears the burden of proof on its preemption defense.
- In Norris, the US Supreme Court substantially narrowed the scope of minor disputes under the RLA, holding that a state law claim:
- is only preempted by the RLA if it involves rights and duties created or defined by a CBA and is therefore dependent on the interpretation of a CBA; and
- is not preempted by the RLA if it involves rights and obligations that exist independent of the CBA.
- Under Section 39-2-703(1) of the MCA, the plain meaning of the language requires that a railroad be held liable for mismanagement.
- BNSF has not identified any provision of the CBA regarding how BNSF should have managed training employees for the HLCS, maintained hi-rail trucks to ensure they are safe to operate or handle claims that it mismanaged its employees or for co-worker negligence. Therefore, BNSF has not identified any CBA provision that would require interpretation of the CBA to resolve Wolfe's negligent mismanagement claim.
- The right under Section 39-2-703(1) of the MCA not to be negligently injured by his coworkers or employer protects Wolfe from both personal injuries and negligent firing. Therefore, under Montana law, although Wolfe did not suffer personal injuries as a result of the collision, he has sufficiently alleged an injury (his termination) that was suffered as a result of BNSF's negligence in the lead-up to the collision. This causal injury does not require interpretation of the CBA.
- Under Norris, it is well-established law that an employee who has been terminated under a CBA may bring a separate, independent state law claim challenging his termination.
- Resolving an independent state-law claim does not require a court to resort to the CBA to determine whether:
- the employee was in fact discharged; or
- the employee's termination was justified under the CBA.
Practical Implications
Railway employees working under CBAs and governed by the RLA typically must challenge discipline through CBA grievance mechanisms and RLA minor dispute procedures. Since CBAs cover nearly all elements of their employment, most claims require CBA interpretation and are preempted by the RLA. Where state railway law permits negligent mismanagement claims and recognizes terminations as a cognizable result of that mismanagement, rail employees may get two bites at the apple in challenging the propriety of their discipline.