B. Representation Dispute

The crux of Northwest's motion to dismiss is that this case raises representation issues within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board (“NMB"). IAM counters that the issue is not
one of representation - that is, which union represents which employees - but is rather about the nature
of bargained-for contractual rights.

The Railway Labor Act defines three classes of labor disputes and provides different dispute
resolution procedures for each. United Transp. Union v. Gateway W. Ry. Co., 78 F.3d 1208, 1213
(7th Cir. 1996). “Minor” disputes involve the application or interpretation of an existing
collective-bargaining agreement and are subject to arbitration by a System Board of Adjustment. 45
U.S.C. § 184. "Major" disputes involve the formation of collective-bargaining agreements, and the
resolution of such disputes is governed by & 6 of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 156.
“Representation” disputes , by contrast, involve defining bargaining units and determining the employee
representative for collective bargaining. Federal courts have no jurisdiction to address representation
disputes under the Railway Labor Act, as Congress intended such matters to be left exclusively to the
NMB. Switehman’s Union v. Nat’] Mediation Bd., 320 U.S. 297 (1943); United Transp. Union, 78 F.3d
at 1213.

Northwest's reliance on the holding in Air Line Employees Ass‘n v. Republic Airlines, Inc., 798

F.2d 967 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 962 (1986), is inapposite, In that case, a union (ALEA)
sued Northwest when, following Northwest’s merger with Republic Airlines, Northwest entered into
a transition agreement with two other unions to represent the newly combined workforce. The court,
in dismissing the case, found that ALEA’s claim was essentially representational in character.

The present case does not resemble the factual setting of Afr Line Employees. Here, IAM does
not question which craft or class it does or should represent. Neither party disputes that IAM is the
certified collective bargaining representative for Northwest’s ESEs. Rather, the present dispute hinges
on IAM‘s allegation that Northwest bargained away certain working conditions that were previously

covered by IAM’s existing collective bargaining agreement. For example, the complaint alleges that

4


dispute, this case is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a board of adjustment. Consolidated Rail
Corp., 491 U.S. at 304. As such, we are obliged to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction in favor of the arbitration scheme laid out in the Railway Labor Act.
CONCLUSION
in sum, we deny Northwest's first motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, The
present dispute is not properly characterized as a representation dispute and, as such, is not within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board. However, we dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction because this case presents a “minor” dispute subject to ww exclusive jurisdiction of a Board

of Adjustment according to the applicable terms of the Railway Labi an is so ordered.
LA Arn /
MARVI ve,

United States District Judge

Dated: Lafi3 fol



as such, are within the jurisdiction of AMFA. Thereafter, Northwest announced its intention to cease
using ESEs for airstarts and to instead use Mechanics. In addition, and again according to IAM, the
AMFA-Northwest agreement purports to formally eliminate the role of ESEs in performing aircraft
cleaning duties. Thereafter, Northwest announced its intention to cease using ESEs for aircraft
cleaning at specified locations.

Count | of the Complaint alleges a violation of Section 2, First of the Railway Labor Act, 45
U.S.C. 8152, making it the “duty of all carriers . . . to exert every reasonable effort to make and
maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules and working conditions.” Count Il of the complaint
alleges violations of Section 2, Seventh and Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act when Northwest
altered the established rules and working conditions of the [AM-represented ESEs. Finally, Count Ill
alleges a violation of Section 2, Third and Fourth of the Railway Labor Act due to Northwest’s putative
interference with its employees’ rights to be organized and represented by the IAM and have the IAM
bargain on their behalf.

ANALYSIS

A. Standard for Motion to Dismiss

The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b}(6) is to test the sufficiency of the
complaint, not decide the merits of the case. Triad Assocs., Inc. v. Chicago Housing Auth., 892 F.2d
583, 586 (7th Cir.1989). In considering a motion to dismiss, we must accept ail well-pleaded
allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. MCM
Partners, Inc. v. Andrews-Bartlett & Assoc., Inc., 62 F.3d 967, 972 (7" Cir. 1995), aff’d, 161 F.3d
443 (7TM Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 810 (1999). We should not grant a motion to dismiss unless
it "appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Under Rule 12(b)(1), a court
must dismiss any action for which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. A district court has subject
matter jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal

question).


until May 2001, the work of performing air starts was expressly set forth only in the ESE contract, and
with one exception air starts were performed exclusively by ESEs. In May 2001, however, Northwest
entered into an agreement with AMFA by which air starts became the exclusive work of Mechanics
represented by AMFA. Such a dispute is not representational in character since IAM does not seek to
represent Northwest’s Mechanics. Rather, IAM seeks to preserve those working conditions for its ESEs
that it alleges were bargained away. Northwest’s contention that the present dispute is
representational in character is without merit and, accordingly, its motion to dismiss on that basis is
denied.
C. Minor Dispute

Northwest alternatively moves that we compel joinder of AMFA as a necessary party and
compel tripartite arbitration.?- Such arbitration is warranted, Northwest claims, because the complaint
presents, at best, a “minor” dispute of contract interpretation that is within the exclusive jurisdiction
of an arbitration board under the Railway Labor Act. IAM counters that, while it does not oppose
AMFA’s joinder as a third party, the present case is not a “minor” dispute and arbitration is as such not
an appropriate remedy. We agree with Northwest.

A “minor” dispute under the Railway Labor Act, “is a dispute growing out of grievances or out
of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working

conditions.” United Transp. Union v. Illinois Central R.R., 998 F.Supp. 874, 880 (N.D. Ill. 1998). A

board of adjustment has exclusive jurisdiction over minor disputes. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Ry.
Labor Executives Corp., 491 U.S. 299, 304 (1989). The test is whether the conflict can be resolved
by reference to an existing agreement. /d. at 881. A “major” dispute, by contrast, “is one in which
a party wants to change an existing collective bargaining agreement.” /d. A “major” dispute arises,

as Northwest points out, where there is an effort to “change the terms of one [collective bargaining

2AMFA, the third party mentioned in Northwest’s motion to compel joinder, itself files a motion
to intervene in this action. Neither Northwest nor [AM oppose AMFA‘s motion. As such, we hereby
grant AMFA’s motion to intervene in this case.


Minute Order Form (06/37)

United States District Court, Northern District of Ilinois

Name of Assigned Jud i Sitting Judge if Oth
vor Magistrate Judge Marvin Aspen than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 4156 DATE 12/13/2001
CASE International Association of vs. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented. ]

(10)

(11)

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due____

(3) im} Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue___.

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on____setfor_____ att

(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor___at

(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__—at__
(7) Q Trial[set for/re-set for] on___—__at

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}

OOFRCP4(m) General Rule 21 OFRCP41(a)(1) OI FRCP41(a)(2).

ti [Other docket entry] | Enter Mernorandum Opinion and Order: We deny Northwest’s first motion

of subject matter jurisdiction (7-1). The present dispute is not properly characterized as a representation dispute and, as such,
is not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board. However, we dismiss for lack of subject matter
Jurisdiction because this case presents a “minor” dispute subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of a Board of Adjustment

according to the applicable terms of the Railway Labor Act. AMFA’s motion to intervene (10-1) is granted.
motions are moot. The status hearing set for 12/14/01 is stricken.

a [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

to dismiss for lack

Any other pending

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. umber of noices

Notices mailed by judge’s staff. DEC 14 2008

Notified counsel by telephone. date dockered

Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. xe
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

12/13/2001

date mailed notice
courtroom ¢

GL deputy’s
initials

Lit

OL

Date/time received in ;
central Clerk’s Office ‘mailing deputy initials



agreement), and therefore the issue is not whether an existing agreement controls the controversy.”
Northwest Mot., n.Q (citing Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 723 (1945)).

There is some support for [AM’s notion that the present dispute is major in character. It is not
clear that the present dispute could be resolved by reference to an existing agreement. The problem,
after all, is not so much in the proper interpretation of the [AM or the AMFA agreements as it is with
whether or not Northwest violated the provisions of the Railway Labor Act when it granted certain
duties to AMFA employees. Indeed, Northwest itself concedes that “IAM essentially seeks to reform
AMFA’s collective bargaining agreement.” Northwest Mot., p. 12. If this is true, then by the definition
of “major” dispute that Northwest supplies, the present controversy would be considered “major” for
our purposes,

Northwest's gaffe in this regard might be dispositive but for the direction laid out by the
Seventh Circuit in Brotherhood of Locomotive Engrs v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 768 F.2d
914 (7th Cir. 1985). In that case, the Seventh Circuit held that a similar three-cornered work
assignment dispute, i.e. a “dispute between two unions, with the employer siding with one of them,”
was a minor dispute. /d. at 919. Indeed, the court's ruling was expansive in its recognition that, not
only are almost all such three-cornered disputes to be considered minor, all doubts about the nature
of a dispute should be resolved in favor of labeling it minor. /d. at 919-920. Such a tendency reflects
“an understandable judicial preference for arbitration over economic warfare.” /d, at 920. As the court
specifically pointed out:

Just as it is contract interpretation when a court tries to figure out what the parties

meant by an exchange of letters creating a contract between them, so is it contract

interpretation when a labor arbitrator decides whether provisions of separate contracts

are inconsistent and if so which provision should be given precedence as the most

authentic expression of the parties’ intent. . . . A determination that a contract has

been modified by another contract .. . is itself contractual interpretation, and is within

the jurisdiction of the arbitrators under the compulsory-arbitration scheme established

by the Railway Labor Act.

fd. at 923. The Seventh Circuit’s clear language in this regard is controlling here, and accordingly we

find that |AM’s allegations constitute a “minor” dispute under the Railway Labor Act. As a minor


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS,
AFL-CIO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 01 C 4156
NORTHWEST AIRLINES INC.,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARVIN E. ASPEN, Chief Judge:

Presently before us is Northwest's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel tripartite
arbitration. Because we find that the present dispute is a “minor” dispute under the Railway Labor Act,
we dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The dispute centers around allegations that, by agreeing to allow members of one employee
union to do certain work, Northwest has violated a preexisting agreement with another union granting
that union’s employees the right to do the work. In this regard, the International Association of
Machinists alleges a three count violation of various sections of the Railway Labor Act and requests
that we enter judgment against Northwest on IAM’s three claims, grant injunctive relief, and award
IAM its attorney’s fees,

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the Plaintiffs’ verified complaint and are assumed to be true

for the purpose of adjudicating this motion to dismiss. The two unions involved are the International

Association of Machinists (“IAM”) and the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (“AMFA"). The

38


essence of IAM’s claim is that employees represented by AMFA have been assigned by Northwest to
perform certain work that is contractually delegated to employees of IAM. The problem is contractual
in nature in that Northwest, in collective bargaining with another union, bargained away certain job
responsibilities already allegedly reserved for employees represented by IAM.

Northwest is a commercial airline carrier engaged in interstate commerce throughout the United
States. The parties agree that Northwest is a “carrier by air” within the meaning of the Railway Labor
Act, 45 U.S.C. § 181, and is governed by the Act’s statutory requirements. IAM is the certified
collective bargaining representative of approximately 19,000 employees at Northwest, including
employees designated as “Equipment Service Employees” (“ESE”). AMFA is a certified collective
bargaining representative for Northwest’s Mechanics.

IAM and Northwest are parties to a collective bargaining agreement governing ESEs and Stock
Clerk Personnel executed in February 1999. That agreement provides in part that the work of
performing “air starts”' on aircraft is within the scope of the ESE classification. In addition, the
agreement provides that cleaning the aircraft is within the ESE classification. IAM acknowledges,
however, that cleaning is normally reserved for the cleaners classification under the Mechanics class
and that Northwest has agreed to divide the cleaning work at different locations between the
Mechanics and the ESEs.

Northwest and AMFA entered into a collective bargaining agreement in May 2001 following
AMFA’s election as the collective bargaining representative for Northwest's Mechanics. According to
IAM, while the AMFA-Northwest agreement purported to only govern the conditions of employment
for Northwest’s Mechanics, it in fact directly altered and affected the terms and conditions of
employment for Northwest's ESEs as well. For example, the AMFA-Northwest agreement purports to

eliminate the role of ESEs in performing air starts, specifying that air starts are technician work and,

‘An air start is a fall back method of starting a jet engine using compressed air applied from free
standing equipment directly to the engine. It is used when, for whatever reason, an engine’s internal
supply of compressed air is low.