Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-12-16469/USCOURTS-ca9-12-16469-0/pdf.json

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

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT BRADFORD,JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 12-16469

D.C. No.

4:10-cv-00751-

JGZ

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2014*

San Francisco, California

Filed September 16, 2014

Before: Richard C. Tallman and Johnnie B. Rawlinson,

Circuit Judges, and Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District

Judge.**

Opinion by Judge Garbis

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

** The Honorable Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

 Case: 12-16469, 09/16/2014, ID: 9241428, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 1 of 15
2 BRADFORD V. UNION PACIFIC R.R. CO.

SUMMARY***

Labor Law

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment

rejecting petitioner’s challenge to a Public Law Board

arbitration decision affirming the termination of his

employment with a railroad.

The panel held that there was no violation of petitioner’s

due process rights in a preliminary on-property investigative

hearing because the railroad company was a private actor

with respect to the hearing. The panel held that the Public

Law Board did not violate petitioner’s due process rights

because the procedures it used did not present a meaningful

risk of a erroneous deprivation of petitioner’s interest in

maintaining his employment. The Board also did not err

regarding procedural deficiencies in the on-property hearing

because it was acting within its jurisdiction, and its decision

not to remedy alleged procedural violations was beyond the

scope of judicial review. The panel concluded that the Board

considered a complete record and did not violate the Railway

Labor Act.

COUNSEL

Jeffrey H. Jacobson, Jacobson Law Firm, Tuscon, Arizona,

for Petitioner-Appellant.

 

*** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 12-16469, 09/16/2014, ID: 9241428, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 2 of 15
BRADFORD V. UNION PACIFIC R.R. CO. 3

Clifford A. Godiner, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis,

Missouri, for Respondents-Appellees.

OPINION

GARBIS, District Judge:

Petitioner-Appellant Robert Bradford, Jr. (“Bradford”)

appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment

on his challenge to a Public Law Board decision affirming the

termination of his employment with a railroad. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and, for the reasons

stated herein, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Bradford commenced his employment with Union Pacific

Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”) in 1979. On December

7, 2007,following procedures discussed herein, Union Pacific

fired Bradford due to drug use.

A. The Drug Tests

In July 2006, Union Pacific, where Bradford was

employed as a conductor, fired him for failing a mandatory

drug test. But in October 2006, after Bradford admitted that

he had violated Union Pacific’s drug and alcohol policy (the

“Policy”) and agreed to seek treatment, he was allowed to

return to service. Bradford’s reinstatement was subject to a

Policy provision requiring his dismissal should he violate the

Policy again within ten years.

 Case: 12-16469, 09/16/2014, ID: 9241428, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 3 of 15
4 BRADFORD V. UNION PACIFIC R.R. CO.

In the early morning of September 4, 2007, Bradford was

scheduled to depart on a train from Tucson, Arizona, to El

Paso, Texas. Prior to departure, the Federal Railroad

Administration subjected Bradford to a random drug and

alcohol test. He provided a urine specimen (the “First

Specimen”) that was “split” so that a second sample (the

“Split Sample”) was saved for a possible re-test.

Hours later, after arriving in El Paso, Bradford slipped

while on the job and injured his tailbone. As a result of the

fall, Bradford was subjected to a “for cause” drug and alcohol

test during which he gave a urine specimen (the “Second

Specimen”).

The lab results on the First Specimen, which were

available a week after the test date, were positive for

amphetamines. But the Second Specimen, collected the same

day as the First Specimen, was negative for drugs and

alcohol.

Because of the positive drug test, on or about September

13, 2007, Union Pacific initiated disciplinary procedures

against Bradford pursuant to the Collective Bargaining

Agreement (the “CBA”) between Union Pacific and the

United Transportation Union (“UTU”), which represents

Bradford and other Union Pacific conductors.

Two weeks after Union Pacific initiated the disciplinary

action, Bradford had a sample of his hair tested for

amphetamines at an independent lab. The hair tested negative

for drugs, including amphetamines, suggesting that Bradford

had not consumed amphetamines during the preceding 90 to

120 days.

 Case: 12-16469, 09/16/2014, ID: 9241428, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 4 of 15
BRADFORD V. UNION PACIFIC R.R. CO. 5

B. The On-Property Investigative Hearing

The CBA provides that disciplinary procedures begin

with a hearing during which a Union Pacific hearing officer

will develop a record. After the hearing, a superintendent

issues a decision.

HearingOfficer Brian Crehan (“Crehan”) was assigned to

Bradford’s case. Crehan initially delayed the hearing because

UTU claimed that it did not have access to the materials

Union Pacific would use in its case. When the hearing

convened, Bradford disputed Union Pacific’s reports that he

had not asked for a test of the split sample on the First

Specimen. In any event, the Split Sample was tested and the

results confirmed the presence of amphetamines in the First

Specimen.

Along with the positive Split Sample test result, Crehan

admitted evidence of the negative test result from the test of

the Second Specimen. Crehan refused to admit evidence of

the negative hair sample test independently obtained by

Bradford. He also did not admit the testimony of Bradford’s

expert witness, forensic toxicologist Mark Stoltman, and did

not permit Bradford to utilize Stoltman’s testimony in closing

statements. Nevertheless, UTU submitted the excluded

evidence to the superintendent who made the disciplinary

decision.

In the course of the on-property investigative hearing,

Crehan engaged in an ex parte meeting with Union Pacific

officials and directly questioned Bradford.

On December 7, 2007, the superintendent sustained the

charge against Bradford and dismissed him from Union

 Case: 12-16469, 09/16/2014, ID: 9241428, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 5 of 15
6 BRADFORD V. UNION PACIFIC R.R. CO.

Pacific. UTU appealed the superintendent’s decision on

Bradford’s behalf, but Union Pacific rejected the appeal. The

matter then went before the Public Law Board (“Board”) for

binding arbitration.

C. The Public Law Board Proceeding

In 2003, Union Pacific and UTU agreed to form a Public

Law Board. The Board consists of three representatives: one

from UTU, one from Union Pacific, and one neutral party. 

Pursuant to the 2003 agreement, the Board can only accept

evidence that the parties presented at the on-property hearing. 

It cannot gather new evidence, although it can request

additional data from the parties.

The Board considered: (1) Bradford’s procedural

objections to the on-property investigative hearing; (2) the

results of the three drug tests administered by Union Pacific

(the First Specimen, the Split Sample, and the Second

Specimen); (3) the evidence related to the hair-sample drug

test obtained by Bradford; and (4) a letter from the Medical

Review Officer1explaining that Bradford could have tested

positive for amphetamines in the morning but not in the

afternoon.

The Board found that Union Pacific had shown that

Bradford violated the conditions of his return to employment

and Union Pacific’s Policy.

The Board rejected Bradford’s procedural objections to

the on-property investigative hearing and concluded that

1 The Board included the text of the Medical Review Officer’s letter in

its award.

 Case: 12-16469, 09/16/2014, ID: 9241428, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 6 of 15
BRADFORD V. UNION PACIFIC R.R. CO. 7

Union Pacific was not required to provide Bradford with

litigation packets from the labs that tested his sample. The

Board found insignificant the fact that Union Pacific

requested that the Split Sample be tested when the Medical

Review Officer denied having received Bradford’s request. 

The Board appeared to agree with the Hearing Officer that

Bradford’s subsequent hair sample test and accompanying

expert witness were not relevant to the issue of whether he

tested positive for drug use on September 4, 2007.

D. The District Court Proceedings

Bradford appealed the Board’s decision to the United

States District Court for the District of Arizona. The parties

filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court

held against Bradford and entered judgment in favor of Union

Pacific on all claims. Bradford v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 872

F. Supp. 2d 912, 914, 924 (D. Ariz. 2012).

The district court rejected Bradford’s contention that the

Railway Labor Act (“RLA”) required the Board to gather

additional evidence and found that the Board had not violated

the RLA. Id. at 918. Specifically, it concluded that the Board

had acted within the scope of its authority and jurisdiction as

outlined by the CBA. Id. at 919–20. The district court also

determined that the Board did not violate Bradford’s due

process rights by deciding his case without the litigation

packet. Id. at 922–23.

Finally, the district court denied Bradford’s claims

centered on public policy and Union Pacific’s purported

 Case: 12-16469, 09/16/2014, ID: 9241428, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 7 of 15
8 BRADFORD V. UNION PACIFIC R.R. CO.

violations of federal regulations and other procedures2on the

grounds that there was no established public policy interest at

stake and that any violations by Union Pacific would not have

changed the Board’s decision. See id. at 923–24. According

to the district court, the Board had considered Union Pacific’s

actions and determined that they did not rise to the level of a

constitutional violation. Id. at 923. Further, the district court

concluded that even if Union Pacific had violated federal

regulations, any remedy was available through the Federal

Railroad Administration, not through the Board. Id. at

923–24.

Bradford filed a timely appeal of the district court’s

decision to this court.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary

judgment enforcing an arbitration award. Sheet Metal

Workers’ Int’l Ass’n Local Union No. 359 v. Madison Indus.,

Inc. of Ariz., 84 F.3d 1186, 1190 (9th Cir. 1996).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Scope of Review

As stated in Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Sheehan:

2 Bradford argued that that Union Pacific violated federal regulations by

failing to produce the litigation packet and that his case should have been

decided using Union Pacific’s Drug and Alcohol Prevention Program

Discipline Panel. Bradford v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 872 F. Supp. 2d 912,

923 (D. Ariz. 2012).

 Case: 12-16469, 09/16/2014, ID: 9241428, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 8 of 15
BRADFORD V. UNION PACIFIC R.R. CO. 9

Judicial review of Adjustment Board orders is

limited to three specific grounds: (1) failure of

the Adjustment Board to comply with the

requirements of the Railway Labor Act;

(2) failure of the Adjustment Board to

conform, or confine, itself to matters within

the scope of its jurisdiction; and (3) fraud or

corruption. Only upon one or more of these

bases may a court set aside an order of the

Adjustment Board.

439 U.S. 89, 93 (1978). However, in Edelman v. W. Airlines,

Inc., we held that a district court would have jurisdiction to

determine whether an adjustment board had violated a party’s

constitutional rights. 892 F.2d 839, 847 (9th Cir. 1989).

B. The On-Property Investigative Hearing

It is well-established that “[t]he guarantees of the Fifth

and Fourteenth amendments apply only to governmental

action, and not to private action.” English v. Burlington N.

R.R. Co., 18 F.3d 741, 744 (9th Cir. 1994). In English, the

railroad discharged an employee after the employee assaulted

another employee in an off-duty incident. Id. at 743. The

employee claimed that the carrier violated his Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendment rights by asking him to waive his

right against self-incrimination during the on-property

hearing. Id. at 744. We stated that “to sustain a due process

claim [the employee] must show that [the carrier’s] hearing

represented governmental action,” and determined that the

investigation, including the on-property hearing, was a

private action. Id.

 Case: 12-16469, 09/16/2014, ID: 9241428, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 9 of 15
10 BRADFORD V. UNION PACIFIC R.R. CO.

Union Pacific in the instant case, like the railroad

company in English, was a private actor with respect to the

on-property hearing. Hence, there was no violation of

Bradford’s due process rights.

C. The Public Law Board Proceeding

Bradford next contends that the Board violated his due

process rights by virtue of its own proceedings and its alleged

failure to remedy the procedural violations that occurred

during the on-property hearing.

1. The Board did not violate Bradford’s due

process rights

The actions of the Board can constitute government

action. Hence, the Board must afford a party, such as

Bradford, due process. See id. Thus, we must consider what

process Bradford was owed.

A litigant receives adequate due process where, in the

context of the circumstances at issue, sufficient procedures

provide the individual an opportunity to be heard before he is

deprived of life, liberty, or property. Edelman, 892 F.2d at

847. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized

three factors that a court should consider in determining

whether there was adequate due process:

1. [T]he private interest that will be affected

by the official action;

2. [T]he risk of an erroneous deprivation of

such interest through the procedures used, and

 Case: 12-16469, 09/16/2014, ID: 9241428, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 10 of 15
BRADFORD V. UNION PACIFIC R.R. CO. 11

the probable value, if any, of additional or

substitute procedural safeguards; and

3. [T]he Government’sinterest, including the

function involved and the fiscal and

administrative burdens that the additional or

substitute procedural requirement would

entail.

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334–35 (1976).

In regard to the Board’s procedures—the “official” action

in this case—Bradford certainly has a strong interest in

maintaining his employment and the Government has a strong

interest in the expeditious resolution of minor disputes that

could disrupt railway transportation.3 However, as to the

second Mathews factor, the procedures that the Board used

did not present a meaningful risk of an erroneous deprivation

of Bradford’s interest.

Under the RLA, if an employee and a carrier cannot reach

an agreement, “the dispute[] may be referred by petition . . .

to the . . . Board with a full statement of the facts and all

supporting data bearing upon the dispute[].” 45 U.S.C.

§ 153(i). Bradford asserts that the Board considered an

incomplete record because the Hearing Officer excluded

evidence relevant to the dispute, including his negative hair

sample test and the testimony of an expert witness. However,

3

See Edelman v. W. Airlines, Inc., 892 F.2d 839, 848 (9th Cir. 1989)

(noting that “[o]f course, [the employee] asserts a significant interest in

continued employment” and that “the government has an important

interest in allowing minor disputes under the [Railway Labor Act] to be

settled in an efficient and informal manner”).

 Case: 12-16469, 09/16/2014, ID: 9241428, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 11 of 15
12 BRADFORD V. UNION PACIFIC R.R. CO.

the Board received all the evidence submitted in the petition

for review, including the evidence that the Hearing Officer

had admitted and excluded.

Bradford claims that the Board’s record was incomplete

because Union Pacific never produced the litigation packet

(i.e., his medical records from the labs that tested his urine

specimens), as required by statute. A Medical Review

Officer must produce the litigation packet if an employee

requests it. 49 C.F.R. § 40.329(a) (“As an MRO or service

agent you must provide, within 10 business days of receiving

a written request from an employee, copies of any records

pertaining to the employee’s use of alcohol and/or drugs,

including records of the employee’s . . . mandated drug

and/or alcohol tests.”). The parties dispute whether Bradford

actually filed the request for the litigation packet. However,

the Board had the transcripts and exhibits from the hearing in

which the parties disputed whether the request was sent,

along with the positive results of the split sample test, the

negative results of the Second Specimen test, and the

subsequent negative hair sample test Bradford provided. The

Board ultimately determined, quite reasonably, that it had

enough information to render a decision without the litigation

packet.

Even if the Board mistakenly absolved Union Pacific of

its responsibility regarding provision of the litigation packet,

any error was immaterial.4 The Board met the statutory

4 Courts must respect even a legally erroneous Board award. United

Paperworkers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38

(1987) (explaining that an arbitrator’s award must be upheld even if the

arbitrator misreads the contract); cf. id. at 39 (“[I]mprovident, even silly,

factfinding . . . is hardly a sufficient basis for disregarding what the

 Case: 12-16469, 09/16/2014, ID: 9241428, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 12 of 15
BRADFORD V. UNION PACIFIC R.R. CO. 13

requirement by considering all of the evidence provided. See

29 C.F.R. § 301.5 (d) (“[A]ll data submitted in support of

employees’ position must affirmatively show the same to

have been presented to the carrier and made a part of the

particular question in dispute.”); id. § 301.5 (e) (same

language addressed to the carrier).

In Goff v. Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corp.,

the Eighth Circuit considered a case in which a transcript

submitted to the Board omitted a recess that occurred during

the hearing and after which a witness changed his testimony. 

276 F.3d 992, 997–98 (8th Cir. 2002). Additionally, the

carrier had refused to release the identity of the individual

who ordered the drug test and under what authority. Id. at

998. Although the Eighth Circuit noted that the omission of

the recess was “odd,” it concluded the carrier’s actions did

not rise to the level of violating due process, in part because

the employee had “ample opportunity to present his

arguments.” Id. Like the plaintiff in Goff, Bradford had

ample opportunity to present his arguments, even though he

was not permitted to introduce all the evidence he desired

during the on-property investigative hearing.

The Board considered the evidence it was required to

consider, so it did not deny Bradford due process.

2. The Board did not err regarding on-property

investigative hearing deficiencies

Bradford asserts that there were various procedural

deficiencies in the on-property investigative hearing. His

[arbitrator] appointed by the parties determined to be the historical

facts.”).

 Case: 12-16469, 09/16/2014, ID: 9241428, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 13 of 15
14 BRADFORD V. UNION PACIFIC R.R. CO.

contentions include, in addition to the litigation packet

contention discussed supra, (1) the Hearing Officer’s

allegedly illegal request that the lab test Bradford’s Split

Sample; (2) an ex parte meeting between the Hearing Officer

and Union Pacific officials; and (3) alleged problems with the

collection of the Split Sample.

The Memorandum of Agreement attached to the CBA

states that “[e]mployees will not be disciplined without just

and sufficient cause as determined by a fair and impartial

investigation except as provided [in the Agreement].” In its

award, the Board addressed Bradford’s procedural

complaints, although it did not resolve them in his favor. 

That the Board considered these issues indicates that it was

determining whether the hearing was fair and whether there

was sufficient cause to discipline Bradford. This is within the

confines of the CBA, as required by Supreme Court

precedent. United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enter. Wheel &Car

Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597 (1960) (requiring that an arbitrator’s

award “draw[] its essence from the collective bargaining

agreement”). Therefore, the Board was acting within its

jurisdiction when it declined to remedythe alleged procedural

issues with the on-property hearing.

Further, the Board’s decision not to remedy Union

Pacific’s alleged violations during the on-property

investigative hearing is beyond the scope of judicial review. 

Courts may not second-guess an arbitrator’s determinations

simply because another decision is plausible. See United

Paperworkers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S.

29, 38 (1987) (“To resolve disputes about the application of

a collective-bargaining agreement, an arbitrator must find

facts and a court may not reject those findings simply because

it disagrees with them.”). Even serious errors of fact or law

 Case: 12-16469, 09/16/2014, ID: 9241428, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 14 of 15
BRADFORD V. UNION PACIFIC R.R. CO. 15

are not sufficient for a court to overturn an arbitrator’s award,

provided the arbitrator is acting within its jurisdiction and not

“stray[ing] from interpretation and application of the

agreement.” Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v.

Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 509 (2001).

3. The Board did not violate the RLA

Bradford does not expressly claim that the Board violated

the RLA. However, his claim that the Board violated his due

process rights by issuing its decision without a complete

record may be interpreted to include a contention that there

was a violation of the RLA, specifically 45 U.S.C. § 153(i).5

Even if Bradford had made such a contention, his position

would lack merit. The Board considered a complete record

and did not violate the RLA.

AFFIRMED.

5

See 45 U.S.C. § 153(i) (“The disputes between an employee . . . and a

carrier . . . shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the

chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes;

but, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the disputes may be

referred . . . to the . . . Adjustment Board with a full statement of the facts

and all supporting data bearing upon the disputes.”).

 Case: 12-16469, 09/16/2014, ID: 9241428, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 15 of 15