Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-16-55070/USCOURTS-ca9-16-55070-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
BNSF Railway, Inc.
Appellee
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division/IBT
Appellant

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BROTHERHOOD OF

MAINTENANCE OF WAY

EMPLOYES DIVISION/IBT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BNSF RAILWAY, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 15-56556

16-55070

D.C. No.

2:15-cv-05091-PA-PJW

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 2, 2016

Pasadena, California

Filed August 24, 2016

Before: MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and JACQUELINE H.

NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and CLAUDIA WILKEN,

*

Senior District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.

* The Honorable Claudia Wilken, Senior United States District Judge for

the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

 Case: 16-55070, 08/24/2016, ID: 10098173, DktEntry: 17, Page 1 of 13
2 BHD. OF MAINT. OF WAY V. BNSF

SUMMARY**

Labor Law

The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor

of an employer on a union’s claim that the employer violated

the Railway Labor Act by retaliating against an employee

who attempted to file grievances.

The panel concluded that the district court’s subsequent

entry of final judgment mooted the question of the propriety

of a preliminary injunction against a strike.

The panel held that the parties’ dispute was “minor,” and

therefore subject to mandatory arbitration, because the

employer asserted a contractual right to take the contested

action of disciplining the employee, and the action was

arguably justified by the parties’ collective bargaining

agreement. The panel rejected the union’s argument that the

distinction between major and minor disputes did not apply

because the dispute was not a dispute over enforcement of the

collective bargaining agreement, but rather concerned

whether the employer’s alleged retaliation undermined the

purpose of the Railway Labor Act and the grievance process.

** 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: 16-55070, 08/24/2016, ID: 10098173, DktEntry: 17, Page 2 of 13
BHD. OF MAINT. OF WAY V. BNSF 3

COUNSEL

Richard S. Edelman (argued) and Matthew D. Watts,

Mooney, Green, Saindon, Murphy & Welch, P.C.,

Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Appellant.

David M. Pryor (argued) and Andrea L. Hyatt, BNSF

Railway Company, Forth Worth, Texas; Donald J. Munro,

Jones Day, Washington, D.C.; for Defendant-Appellee.

OPINION

M. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal, we decide whether the test for

distinguishing between major and minor labor disputes

pursuant to the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C.

§§ 151–188, applies when a labor union alleges that an

employer illegally retaliated against an employee attempting

to file grievances. We hold that the test does apply, and that

the district court correctly categorized the dispute in this case

as minor, and subject to mandatory arbitration.

FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

BNSF Railway, Inc. (BNSF) is a major freight railroad in

North America. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way

Employes1 Division/IBT (BMWED) is a labor union

representing workers who maintain railway track

1 The union uses this archaic, but recognized, spelling of the word

“employees” in its name. See WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL

DICTIONARY 743 (1961).

 Case: 16-55070, 08/24/2016, ID: 10098173, DktEntry: 17, Page 3 of 13
4 BHD. OF MAINT. OF WAY V. BNSF

infrastructure. Bobby Tindell is a senior track supervisor in

Needles, California, who is employed by BNSF and

represented by BMWED. As a senior employee, Tindell is

entitled to be given preference for overtime assignments,

which are to be awarded based on seniority.

In 2015, Tindell became concerned that more junior

employees were being offered overtime shifts that should

have been first offered to him. Under the collective

bargaining agreement (CBA) that governs the parties in this

dispute, when a senior employee is improperly denied an

overtime shift, he may file a time claim grievance to collect

compensation for that overtime. Because the CBA does not

provide for a discovery mechanism for such grievances,

Tindell began to gather his own evidence to support his

overtime claims. He began by accessing BNSF’s payroll

system to find out whether junior employees had worked

overtime shifts.2

In addition to accessing the database, Tindell repeatedly

questioned his junior coworkers about their overtime shifts.

One of those coworkers, Kyle Sahlstrom, complained to

BNSF’s human resources department about Tindell’s

questions. He reported that over the course of a year, Tindell

would access Sahlstrom’s payroll records on a weekly basis

and then come to Sahlstrom to tell him “about how much

more money I make th[a]n he does with the exact dollar

2 Tindell had access to the system as the result of a previous position he

held at BNSF. After he left that position, BNSF failed to terminate his

access to the employee information. Tindell had not been formally

instructed that accessing the payroll system in order to investigate a time

claim was prohibited, but once BNSF discovered he had been accessing

the database for this purpose, he was told to stop doing so.

 Case: 16-55070, 08/24/2016, ID: 10098173, DktEntry: 17, Page 4 of 13
BHD. OF MAINT. OF WAY V. BNSF 5

amount.” According to Sahlstrom, Tindell told him that he

acted similarly with “everyone that he has seniority on so he

can put time claims in.” Sahlstrom viewed these

conversations as invasive, and asked the human resources

department to intervene. According to Tindell, his

conversations with his coworkers were not “hostile,

threatening, or argumentative,” but Sahlstrom claimed he felt

“harassed.” Tindell was instructed to stop asking his

coworkers about their overtime, but he continued doing so.

Shortly after he was instructed to stop bothering Sahlstrom,

Tindell approached Sahlstrom and another coworker and told

them they must tell him any time they worked an overtime

shift, and if they did not, he had other means of discovering

the information. Sahlstrom and the other employee reported

this incident to BNSF. Specifically, they told BNSF that

Tindell “refused to honor their request to stop asking them

about their overtime work and was creating an unpleasant

work environment.”

Because of these complaints, BNSF initiated an

investigation of Tindell for violating BNSF’s rules of

conduct. As a result of that investigation, it suspended Tindell

for 30 days for “continuing to create an unpleasant work

environment to various employees after confronting them

about their overtime pay” although Tindell had been “clearly

instructed . . . to stop.” Under the CBA, BMWED could (and

did) file an appeal of the disciplinary decision on behalf of

Tindell. That appeal proceeded through the arbitration

process outlined in the CBA.

On July 7, 2015, Tindell and Sahlstrom attended a

meeting with other track supervisors. During the meeting,

Tindell and Sahlstrom got into an argument about the

overtime issue, during which they each made offensive and

 Case: 16-55070, 08/24/2016, ID: 10098173, DktEntry: 17, Page 5 of 13
6 BHD. OF MAINT. OF WAY V. BNSF

profane comments to the other. After the incident, Sahlstrom

filed another written complaint, this time about Tindell’s

behavior and language at the meeting. He reported that since

the prior investigation, he had tried to keep his distance from

Tindell, but that Tindell had not been treating Sahlstrom “as

an equal in the work place,” which caused him to “feel very

uncomfortable with the attitude and now with the derogatory

comments.” BNSF initiated a second investigation of Tindell

for his part in the argument.3

While Tindell’s appeal of his suspension was proceeding

through the arbitration process, BMWED filed a complaint

against BNSF in the District Court for the Central District of

California. It alleged that BNSF’s disciplinary actions

“interfered with and subverted the RLA grievance and

arbitration processes,” and sought a declaration that BNSF’s

actions violated the RLA “by imposing discipline and

penalties on use of the statutorily mandated minor dispute

resolution process.” Eleven days later, BMWED sent BNSF

a notice that union members were prepared to strike if BNSF

did not rescind Tindell’s discipline within ten days. BNSF

filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and

preliminary injunction to enjoin BMWED from proceeding

with the threatened strike, arguing that the dispute between

the parties was a minor one that was subject to mandatory

arbitration, and that any strike would therefore be illegal. In

support of its motion, BNSF submitted several witness

declarations from BNSF officials. BMWED did the same in

opposition.

The district court ordered a hearing on the motion for a

preliminary injunction. In that order, it stated that it would

 

3

 BNSF also investigated Sahlstrom’s participation in the argument.

 Case: 16-55070, 08/24/2016, ID: 10098173, DktEntry: 17, Page 6 of 13
BHD. OF MAINT. OF WAY V. BNSF 7

not take live direct testimony, but would instead receive such

testimony from witness declarations. It further directed the

parties to file any requests to cross-examine witnesses who

had filed written declarations, as long as that person was not

beyond the court’s subpoena power and was available to

testify at the hearing. The court ruled that if a witness did not

appear for live cross-examination after the court had ordered

the witness’s appearance, the court would not consider the

direct testimony in that witness’s declaration. BMWED

requested cross-examination of several of BNSF’s witnesses,

and the court granted that request. At the hearing, all of the

declarants whose direct testimony was considered were

subject to live cross-examination. Sahlstrom did not submit

a declaration or testify at the hearing. After the hearing, the

district court ruled in favor of BNSF, concluding that the

dispute was minor and subject to mandatory arbitration, and

enjoining the threatened strike.

BMWED filed an interlocutory appeal of the preliminary

injunction. In its briefing, it raised two challenges to the

injunction. First, it argued that when the district court

received direct testimony through written declarations rather

than live testimony, it violated the procedural requirements

contained in the Norris-La Guardia Act, 29 U.S.C.

§§ 101–115, which prohibit federal courts from enjoining

labor strikes “except after hearing the testimony of witnesses

in open court (with opportunity for cross-examination).” Id.

§ 107. Second, it argued that on the merits, the district court

legally erred when it applied the test for distinguishing a

major dispute from a minor dispute, which is principally

articulated in Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Railway Labor

Executives. Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299, 307 (1989) (ConRail).

Specifically, BMWED argued that because its complaint

alleges that BNSF retaliated against Tindell in a way that

 Case: 16-55070, 08/24/2016, ID: 10098173, DktEntry: 17, Page 7 of 13
8 BHD. OF MAINT. OF WAY V. BNSF

“subverts” the purposes of the RLA and the grievance

process, its claim was “statutory,” and therefore not subject

to the ConRail analysis.

After the parties’ appellate briefs were filed, the parties

stipulated in district court that “the factual record developed

at the hearing on the defendant’s motion for preliminary

injunction is sufficient to convert the Court’s order into a

final judgment.” The court then concluded “after reviewing

the evidence, [that] the dispute is minor,” and “BNSF has not

violated the RLA.”

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

When this appeal was initially filed, we had jurisdiction

over the preliminary injunction as an interlocutory appeal

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Under that procedural

framework, we would have reviewed “the legal determination

of whether the district court had the power to issue an

injunction de novo,” and “the district court’s exercise of that

power for abuse of discretion.” Aircraft Serv. Int’l, Inc. v.

Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 779 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2015)

(en banc) (quoting Cont’l Airline, Inc. v. Intra Brokers, Inc.,

24 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 1994)). Such a review would

also have considered whether the district court’s decision not

to hear direct testimony live in court was a procedural

violation of the Norris-La Guardia Act that would have made

the preliminary injunction improper.

However, the subsequent entry of the final judgment in

the case mooted the question of the procedural propriety of

the preliminary injunction. The final judgment ended the life

of the preliminary injunction, and it no longer had binding

 Case: 16-55070, 08/24/2016, ID: 10098173, DktEntry: 17, Page 8 of 13
BHD. OF MAINT. OF WAY V. BNSF 9

effect on the parties.4See Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr., Inc. v. Pac.

Lumber Co., 257 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing

Madison Square Garden Boxing, Inc. v. Shavers, 562 F.2d

141, 144 (2d Cir. 1977)).

Because the district court evaluated the evidence and

made findings of fact after the preliminaryinjunction hearing,

we review the final judgment as the result of a bench trial.

See OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Haas Indus., Inc., 634 F.3d 1092,

1096 (9th Cir. 2011). On that basis, we review the district

court’s findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law

de novo. Id.

ANALYSIS

A strike or work stoppage is “unlawful” under § 107(a) of

the RLA if the strike concerns a “minor” dispute that is

subject to mandatory arbitration. Ass’n of Flight Attendants

v. Mesa Air Grp., Inc., 567 F.3d 1043, 1046–47 (9th Cir.

2009) (holding that federal courts “may issue injunctions to

freeze the status quo during the bargaining process over”

major disputes, but not minor disputes).

4 At oral argument, counsel for BMWED argued that this issue was still

live because the final judgment permanently enjoined the union from

striking, and the Norris-La Guardia Act governs both preliminary and

permanent labor injunctions. We see no indication of a permanent

injunction in the record. BMWED was the plaintiff in this case, and BNSF

did not counterclaim for permanent injunctive relief; it requested only the

pretrial remedy of a preliminary injunction. The final judgment merely

ruled that BMWED’s declaratory judgment action be dismissed on the

merits, and that it should recover nothing. Such a judgment is not an

“injunction” subject to the requirements of the Norris-La Guardia Act.

 Case: 16-55070, 08/24/2016, ID: 10098173, DktEntry: 17, Page 9 of 13
10 BHD. OF MAINT. OF WAY V. BNSF

Minor disputes are those “growing out of grievances or

out of the interpretation or application of agreements

concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.”

45 U.S.C. § 153(i); see ConRail, 491 U.S. at 303. They are

“attempts to enforce existing contractual obligations and

rights.” Ass’n of Flight Attendants, 567 F.3d at 1047. “Where

an employer asserts a contractual right to take the contested

action, the ensuing dispute is minor if the action is arguably

justified by the terms of the parties’ collective-bargaining

agreement. Where, in contrast, the employer’s claims are

frivolous or obviously insubstantial, the dispute is major.”

ConRail, 491 U.S. at 307. The ConRail test “looks to whether

a claim has been made that the terms of an existing agreement

either establish or refute the presence of a right to take the

disputed action. The distinguishing feature of such a case is

that the dispute may be conclusively resolved by interpreting

the existing agreement.” Id. at 305. The burden on the

employer to show that its position is “arguably justified” by

the agreement is “relatively light.” Id. at 306–07. “When in

doubt, courts construe disputes as minor.” Ass’n of Flight

Attendants, 567 F.3d at 1047.

BMWED attempts to sidestep the ConRail framework

entirely by claiming that the distinction between minor and

major disputes does not apply to the case before us. We

disagree. The union’s contention is that the dispute is neither

a dispute over the enforcement of the CBA nor the

negotiation of new rights, but is instead a dispute over

whether BNSF’s alleged retaliation against Tindell

undermines the purpose of the RLA and the grievance

process. This is a distinction without a difference. BNSF has

asserted a “contractual right to take the contested action.”

ConRail, 491 U.S. at 307. BMWED, in response, contends

that BNSF’s reliance on the contract is a pretext for illegal

 Case: 16-55070, 08/24/2016, ID: 10098173, DktEntry: 17, Page 10 of 13
BHD. OF MAINT. OF WAY V. BNSF 11

retaliation. This is a dispute that fits squarely within the

major/minor framework from the RLA and ConRail.

BMWED’s defense to the contractual language is tantamount

to an argument that BNSF’s contractual position is

“frivolous” or in “bad faith,” a concept incorporated into the

ConRail test. At bottom, BMWED’s claim is that BNSF’s

contractual position is not “arguably justified” because it is

really a cover for illegal retaliation. BMWED cannot merely

invoke the general concept of retaliation or corporate action

that discourages the filing of grievances in order to evade

mandatory arbitration.

As the district court noted, BMWED’s position that it

should not be subject to the ConRail test is unsupported by

any legal precedent, and would “turn the RLA on its head.”

The purpose of the statute is “to head off strikes, not

encourage them.” Aircraft Serv. Int’l, 779 F.3d at 1079.

According to BMWED, a union’s invocation of any statutory

argument supporting its strike, regardless of its strength,

would shake off the burdens of ConRail and make its strike

lawful and unenjoinable. Such a reading of ConRail is

untenable.

Having concluded that the district court’s decision to

apply the ConRail test was appropriate, we also conclude that

it did so faithfully when it ruled that the parties’ dispute is a

minor one. Ultimately, the dispute in this case is about

whether Tindell’s discipline was justifiable. BNSF has a

colorable position that its suspension of Tindell was

supported by the terms of the CBA. That document

incorporates BNSF’s workplace rules and policies, which in

turn prohibit employee conduct that is “insubordinate,”

“quarrelsome,” and “discourteous.”

 Case: 16-55070, 08/24/2016, ID: 10098173, DktEntry: 17, Page 11 of 13
12 BHD. OF MAINT. OF WAY V. BNSF

Based on the information BNSF had at its disposal,

Tindell was arguably in violation of those standards. It

received multiple unsolicited complaints about Tindell from

his coworkers that he had continued to badger them about

their overtime even after he had been asked to stop, which

made them feel uncomfortable and harassed.5 Although we do

not here weigh these complaints against Tindell’s need for

information to bring legitimate grievances or come to a

conclusion about whether the discipline was retaliatory,

Tindell’s discipline could have been warranted under the

existing rules and policies.

In arbitration, BMWED may be able to show that BNSF’s

reliance on the CBA and associated rules of conduct was

pretextual. The union might also be able to prove that the

discipline was “unjust,” which is prohibited by the CBA.

However, such allegations, in and of themselves, do not

transform this case into a major dispute that can lawfully be

made the subject of a strike. If both sides have non-frivolous

positions regarding the interpretation and application of

existing agreements and policies, the dispute is minor under

the RLA and ConRail, and must be resolved through

arbitration.

5 BMWED also contends that the district court abused its discretion

when it only heard evidence about Sahlstrom’s complaints from BNSF

officials and not from Sahlstrom himself, on the grounds that such

testimony is “inadmissable double hearsay.” We conclude that the district

court did not abuse its discretion, because the testimony of BNSF officials

was submitted for the purpose of explaining why BNSF chose to take

disciplinary action, not whether Sahlstrom’s complaints were accurate as

a matter of fact. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) (defining hearsay in part as a

statement “a party offers for the truth of the matter asserted in the

statement”).

 Case: 16-55070, 08/24/2016, ID: 10098173, DktEntry: 17, Page 12 of 13
BHD. OF MAINT. OF WAY V. BNSF 13

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-55070, 08/24/2016, ID: 10098173, DktEntry: 17, Page 13 of 13