N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

INTER NATIONAL ASSOC IATION OF SHEET M ETAL, AIR , R AIL AND TR ANSPOR TATION W OR KER S, TR ANSPOR TATION DIVISION, AKA SM AR T-TD, Pla intiff - Appe lla nt,

v. B NSF R AILW AY C OM PANY,
De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e
. No. 15-35747
D.C . No. 2:15-c v-01270-R SL

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R obe rt S. La snik, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 4, 2016 Se a ttle , W a s hington
B e fore : HAW KINS, R

AW LINSON, a

nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s.

The Tra nsporta

tion Division of the Inte rna tio n al A ssoc ia tion o f She e t M e ta l, Air, R a il a nd Tra nsporta

tion W orke rs (“ Union” ), a ppe a ls the de n ia l of a

pre lim ina

ry 

# FIL ED

M AY 31 2016
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is n o t ap p r o p r i a te for public a tion a nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.injunc tion se e king to e njoin B NSF R a ilwa y C o. ( “ BNSF” ) from m a k ing c e rta in

c ha nge s to e m

ploy e e a va ila

bility rule s without e nga ging i n t h e m a jor dispute ba rga i ning proc e ss de sc ribe d in Se c tion 6 of the R a i lwa y La bor Ac t . W e a ffirm

. B NSF propose d im

p le m e nting c e rta in c ha

nge s with re spe c t to thre e ne w inte rdivisiona l se rvic e s, c la im ing its a c tions we re a uthoriz e d by Artic le IX of the e xisting

c olle c tive ba

rga ining a gre e m e nt (“ C B A” ). B NSF c onte nds tha t t h e propose d te rm s
to whic h the Union o bje c t s , in v olving turn-re m ova l a nd pre dic tive work sc he dule s,

a re e nc om

pa ssed i n t

he “ hours on duty ” a

nd “ othe r c onditions of work” provisions tha t t h e c a rrie r m a y im

pose in c o nne c t ion with e sta blishing this i nte r-divisiona l

se rvic e unde r Artic le IX.
W e a g r ee with the d istric t c ourt tha t B NSF’ s a c tions a re a rgua b ly a uthoriz e d by t he e xisting C B A, a nd thus the Union’ s dispute ove r the te rm s is a ppropria te l y

c ha ra c te riz e d a s a “ m inor” dispute unde r C o n s o l i date d Rail C

orporation v
. Railw ay Labor Ex e c utives ’ A ssoc iation , 491 U.S. 299 (1989) (“ C onrail ” ). Dispute s re la ting

“ e i the r to the m e a n ing o r p r o per a pplic a tion of a pa

rtic ula r provision with re fe re nc e
to a spe c ific situa

tion” a re de e m e d “ m inor dispute s.” Id. a t 303 (quota tion o m itte d).
If a n e m ploy e r a sse rts a c o n t r act u al right t o ta ke a c onte ste d a c tion, “ the e nsuing dispute is m i n or if the a c t ion i s ar g ua bly justifie d by the te rm s of the pa rtie s’

2c olle c tive -ba rga i ning a gre e m e nt,” tha t is, so long a s the e m ploy e r’ s a rgum e nts a re not

“ obviously

insubsta ntia l” or “ frivolous.” Id. a t 306-07.
B NS F ’s p r i or Se c tion 6 m a jor dispute notic e , w hic h sought to im ple m e nt,

a m ong o the r things, sim ila r c ha nge s t o worke r a va ila

bility a nd sc he duling but a m ong

a va rie ty of c a

rrier s an d line s na tionwide , doe s n ot a lte r the na t ure of this pa

rtic ula r d i s p ute , whic h pe rta ins only to B NSF’ s propose d inte r-divisiona l se rvic e in t h r ee
spe c ific l oc a tions a nd a s a rgua b ly c onte m

pla te d b y Artic le IX. 1 Thus, t h e U nion’ s
prope r re m e d

y is t o se e k binding a rbitra t ion to de te rm ine whe the r B NSF’ s a c tions

we re , in fa c t, a

u thoriz e d by the e xisting C B A. 45 U.S.C

. § 153; C onrail , 491 U.S. a t 303-04.
B e c a use the dispute he re is a m a tte r of c ontra c t ua l inte rpre ta tion le ft e xc lusive l y
to the Na tiona l R a ilroa d Adjustm e n t B oa rd, we AFFIRM the de nia l of a pre lim ina ry injunc tion a nd R E M AND with instruc tions to DISM ISS the unde rly ing suit for a la c k

1 Issuing a Se c tion 6 n otic e for a broa de r purpose doe s n o t a utom a tic a lly c onve rt the m ore na

rrow issue he re into a “ m a jor” d ispu t e, b ecau s e the thre shold que stion is still whe the r or not a pa rtic ula r dispute m a y be re solve d by inte rpre ting the e xisting a gre e m e nt. Se e

, e .g., C onrail, 4 91 U.S. a t 306 (“ [T] he prope r func tioning of the s ta t u t o r y s c he m e re quire s the c ourt to substitute its c ha ra c te riz a tion [of the dispute ] for tha t of the c l a im a nt.” ); C SX Transp. Inc

. v
. U

nite d Transp. Uni o n , 879 F.2d 990, 999 (2d C ir. 1989) (“ It is [] ne c e ssa ry to a ddre ss, a s a thre shold m a tte r, the na ture of the c ontrove rsy

be twe e n the pa

rtie s.” ) ; C hic ago & N

.W

. Transp. C

o. v . Ry

. Labor Ex e c s. Ass’n , 908 F.2d 144, 158 (7th C ir. 1990) (“ Filing a Se c tion 6 notic e m a y kic k o ff a m a

jor dispute ; it doe s not tra nsform a m inor dispute into a m a jor d ispute .” ).
3of s ubje c t m a tte r jurisdic tion. Se e Ass’n o f F light Atte ndants v
. M

e sa Air Group, Inc

. , 567 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th C ir. 2009). Ea c h p a rty sha ll be a r the i r own c osts on a ppe a l.

4Int’l A ssn of She e t M e tal e t c v . B NSF R ailw ay

C om pany , Case No. 15-35747 Raw linson, Cir c uit Judge , c onc ur r ing in the judgm e nt:

I c onc ur in the judgm e nt a ffirm ing the de nia l of a pre l im ina

ry injunc tion a

nd

re m a nding for dism

issa l due to la c k of subje c t m a tte r jurisdic tion. I write

se pa ra te ly to e xpre ssly disa

vow a ny re lia nc e on the out-of-c irc uit a uthority c ite d in the m a in disposition. 

# FIL ED

M AY 31 2016
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1