Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03604/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03604-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 740
Nature of Suit: Railway Labor Act
Cause of Action: 45:151 Railway Labor Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITE HERE INTERNATIONAL UNION,

Plaintiff,

v.

SKY CHEFS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.19-cv-03604-JSC 

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER 

Re: Dkt. No. 5

Plaintiff UNITE HERE International Union filed for a temporary restraining order and 

preliminary injunction on June 21, 2019 seeking to enjoin Sky Chefs, Inc. from enforcing a “NonSolicitation and Distribution Policy” regarding union communications on Sky Chefs’ property, 

including the wearing of union lanyards.

1

 (Dkt. No. 5.)2 After careful consideration of the parties’

briefing, and having had the benefit of oral argument on June 24, 2019, the Court concludes that 

an evidentiary hearing is required under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 107. See N. 

Stevedoring & Handling Corp. v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 685 F.2d 344, 

350 (9th Cir. 1982) (noting that “[t]he Act covers any labor dispute,” and remanding the action to 

the district court for a TRO hearing, “with live witnesses if requested, with the right of crossexamination, and followed by findings as required by [section] & of the Norris-LaGuardia Act to 

determine whether an injunction is appropriate.”). 

In reaching the conclusion that a hearing is warranted, the Court rejects Defendant’s 

reliance on Ass’n of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO v. Horizon Air Indus., Inc., 280 F.3d 901 (9th 

Cir. 2002) for the proposition that a private action under the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”), 45 

 

1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c). (Dkt. Nos. 8 & 9.) 

2 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents. 

Case 3:19-cv-03604-JSC Document 20 Filed 06/26/19 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

U.S.C. § 152, in a post-union certification case fails where there is an adequate remedy through 

arbitration, and thus, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate irreparable harm. (See Dkt. No. 11 at 17-18.) 

In Horizon Air, the union filed an action in federal court under the RLA challenging the 

defendant-airline’s policy prohibiting a flight attendant from wearing a union pin on his uniform. 

The airline moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the dispute was within 

the scope of the collective bargaining agreement and thus constituted a “minor dispute” subject to 

mandatory arbitration pursuant to the RLA. 280 F.3d at 903. The district court granted dismissal 

on those grounds, and on appeal the union argued that its flight attendants have a statutory right 

under the RLA to wear union pins and that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over RLA 

violations. Id. at 904. 

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the airline. The court held that in post-certification cases

arising under the RLA federal courts are without jurisdiction to resolve minor disputes that do “not 

involve a fundamental attack on the collective bargaining process,” or where it is not shown that 

either the employer’s conduct “has been motivated by anti-union animus” or “circumstances exist 

that significantly undermine the functioning of the union.” Id. at 905 (internal quotation marks 

omitted). The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal because the facts did “not reveal any 

‘exceptional circumstances’ necessitating judicial intervention, such as a policy motivated by antiunion animus or circumstances that significantly undermine the functioning of the union.” Id. at 

906.

The circumstances here are different. First, Horizon Air was addressing the union’s 

argument that it did not have to arbitrate at all and instead the federal court could decide the merits 

of the dispute. Here, Plaintiff concedes that the arbitrator has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the 

minor dispute; it is instead asking for a preliminary injunction to ensure that the union does not 

suffer irreparable harm. Second, to the extent Horizon Air can be read as precluding federal 

jurisdiction to even issue temporary injunctive relief pending arbitration, the court specifically 

carved out disputes regarding policies “motivated by anti-union animus.” See id. at 906. 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges such anti-union animus. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 13 (“Sky Chefs’ decision to 

impose the Solicitation and Distribution Ban and to prohibit union lanyards was motivated by 

Case 3:19-cv-03604-JSC Document 20 Filed 06/26/19 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

antiunion animus and for the purpose of stifling union communication and gaining unwarranted 

advantage in the labor dispute.”).) The Court is therefore not convinced on the present record that 

as a matter of law Plaintiff cannot demonstrate irreparable harm. 

Accordingly, and as discussed at the June 24, 2019 hearing, the Court will hold a telephone 

status conference on July 3, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to discuss the evidentiary hearing scheduled for 

July 9, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2019

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-03604-JSC Document 20 Filed 06/26/19 Page 3 of 3