Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05079/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05079-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Airlines, Inc.
Appellee
Roy Chandler
Appellant
Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO Local 514
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR 10 1992 

ROY CHANDLER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. and TRANSPORT 

WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO 

LOCAL 514, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 91-5079 

) (D.C. No. 88-C-417-E) 

) (N.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and SAM,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable David Sam, District Judge, United States District 

Court for the District of Utah, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-5079 Document: 010110240421 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 1
Plaintiff Roy Chandler appeals from an order of the district 

court denying Chandler's motion to reopen this case following 

exhaustion of his administrative remedies as required by the 

Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 u.s.c. §§ 151-188, made applicable to 

air carriers at§ 181. 

Chandler was fired by Defendant American Airlines in 1987. 

He requested the assistance of his union, Defendant Transport 

Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO Local 514 (TWU), in filing a 

grievance. TWU submitted Chandler's grievance to American but 

allegedly failed to pursue the grievance or set it for hearing. 

Chandler then sought advice of counsel after which TWU gave formal 

notice of withdrawal of the grievance. 

Chandler next conunenced this action in district court 

alleging wrongful termination of employment against American and 

breach of the duty of fair representation against TWU. Both 

American and TWU filed motions to dismiss and for swnmary judgment 

which were sustained by the court on the ground that the action 

was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 

On appeal, a panel of this court reversed, holding that there 

was a sufficient issue of fact regarding when the statute of 

limitations began to run to preclude swnmary judgment. See 

Chandler v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 88-2728 (10th Cir. 

Oct. 2, 1989). · On remand, Defendants again filed motions to 

dismiss, this time on the ground that Chandler had failed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies as set forth in the RLA at 

§ 153 First. These motions were sustained with the proviso that 

the case was subject to being reopened if timely notice were filed 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-5079 Document: 010110240421 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 2
by the parties. Following exhaustion and denial of his claims by 

the Adjustment Board, Chandler filed a motion to reopen the case. 

That motion was denied and Chandler appeals. 

On appeal, Chandler argues that the district court erred in 

holding that he was required by the RLA to exhaust administrative 

remedies by submitting his case to the Adjustment Board for 

arbitration. In the alternative, Chandler argues that if the 

district court were correct in requiring submission, such 

submission amounted to dismissal of his action against TWU because 

the dispute between him and TWU is not subject to arbitration. 

Employees subject to the RLA must utilize dispute settlement 

procedures as provided for in that Act for minor disputes. 

Andrews v. Louisville & N. R.R., 406 U.S. 320, 322 (1972). Minor 

disputes include those which arise out of an existing collective 

bargaining agreement. See Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Railway 

Labor Executives' Ass'n, 491 U.S. 299, 303 (1989). 

Chandler's claim against American is a minor dispute which 

arose out of the collective bargaining agreement. Chandler 

alleged that the terms of the collective bargaining agreement were 

violated because he was dismissed without a hearing and appeal . 

Chandler's claim, therefore, was correctly submitted to the 

Adjustment Board. 

"Judicial review of the arbitral decision is limited." Id. 

at 304. See also Andrews, 406 U.S. at 325 (party who has 

litigated issue before the Adjustment Board on the merits may not 

relitigate that issue in independent judicial proceeding, but is 

limited to judicial review of the Board' s proceedings that the Act 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-5079 Document: 010110240421 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 3
itself provides). On review we may only examine whether the 

Adjustment Board failed to comply with the requirements of the 

RLA, failed to conform or confine itself to matters within the 

scope of its jurisdiction, or whether there was any fraud or 

corruption in the proceedings. Union Pac. R.R. v. Sheehan, 439 

U.S. 89, 93 (1978)(citing 45 u.s.c. § 153 First (q)). 

Chandler does not allege that any of these factors is 

present. Therefore, the district court properly denied review of 

the Adjustment Board's decision. 

Chandler raises a potential constitutional claim that his due 

process rights were violated because the Adjustment Board was 

improperly biased against him. A constitutionally based argument 

may be another basis for judicial review. See Edelman v. Western 

Airlines, Inc., 892 F.2d 839, 847 (9th Cir. 1989). We do not need 

to determine here whether this circuit would also permit judicial 

review of constitutional claims. Chandler alleged that because 

the Adjustment Board was comprised of a "Company member, a TWU 

member, and a neutral referee," Appellant's Br. at 7, and because 

the positions of both the American and TWU representatives were 

adverse to him, it, therefore, was "inconceivable" that he could 

have prevailed. Chandler did not protest the composition of the 

Board before it rendered its decision against him. Moreover, the 

neutral arbitrator also found against Chandler. Under these 

circumstances, Chandler's unsubstantiated and conclusory 

allegations cannot support a due process claim, and Chandler is 

not entitled to judicial review on this issue. 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-5079 Document: 010110240421 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 4
While the district court had no jurisdiction over Chandler's 

claim against American, a different situation is present in regard 

to his claim against TWO. In Czosek v. O'Mara, 397 U.S. 25 

(1970), the Court noted that the judiciary is the primary guardian 

of the duty of fair representation. Id. at 27. It is 

beyond cavil that a suit against the union for breach of 

its duty of fair representation is not within the 

jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board 

or subject to the ordinary rule that administrative 

remedies should be exhausted before resort to the 

courts. The claim against the union defendants for the 

breach of their duty of fair representation is a 

discrete claim quite apart from the right of individual 

employees expressly extended to them under the Railway 

Labor Act to pursue their employer before the Adjustment 

Board. 

Id. at 28 (citations and footnote omitted). Therefore, the 

district court has jurisdiction over Chandler's claims against 

TWU. 1 We note that although Chandler is pennitted by statute to 

pursue his grievance before the Adjustment Board without union 

assistance, this right does not excuse any refusal by TWU to 

fulfill its duty of fair representation because TWU is in a far 

better position to process a grievance successfully than Chandler. 

See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). 

In conclusion, the district court properly required Chandler 

to submit his claim against .American to arbitration and properly 

1 We do not face here the situation which was before us in 

Richins v. Southern Pacific Co. (Pacific Lines), 620 F.2d 761, 763 

(10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1110 (1981), in which the 

claims against the company and the union were not easily 

separable, and the case could not be bifurcated. Chandler's 

reference in his complaint to collusion between American and TWU 

is conclusory and vague and does not support an allegation of 

collusion. Further, Chandler clearly bifurcated the issues in his 

claims for relief. 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-5079 Document: 010110240421 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 5
denied review of the Adjustment Board's decision. The district 

court does have jurisdiction to hear Chandler's claim against TWU. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in 

part, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings in 

accordance with this order and judgment. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-5079 Document: 010110240421 Date Filed: 04/10/1992 Page: 6