Opinion ID: 76416
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Proper Forum for this Grievance on Remand

Text: 42 After it set aside the arbitrator's award, the district court confronted the question of who should decide the Mann-Dalland grievance on remand. The district court considered the grievance resolution provisions of the CBA and the settlement agreement in Warzocha's case, and concluded that the settlement provisions did not supercede the RLA and CBA's requirement of submission to the Board. The Mann-Dalland Pilots contend that this was error. They argue that AirTran and the involved employees, through their union, agreed in the settlement that a single arbitrator would hear and decide the Mann-Dalland Grievance. 43 The Warzocha settlement agreement provided that the Mann-Dalland grievance will be arbitrated in separate proceedings, if necessary. (R.1-35 at Ex. 2, ¶ 10.) At best, will be arbitrated is ambiguous: while it might refer to consideration by a single arbitrator, the Supreme Court and this court also refer to a hearing and disposition by an adjustment board as arbitration. See, e.g., Consol. Rail Corp. v. Railway Labor Executives' Association, 491 U.S. 299, 303-04, 109 S.Ct. 2477, 2481, 105 L.Ed.2d 250 (1989) (A minor dispute in the railroad industry is subject to compulsory and binding arbitration before the National Railroad Adjustment Board ... or before an adjustment board established by the employer and the unions representing the employees.); Pyles v. United Air Lines, Inc., 79 F.3d 1046, 1050 (11th Cir.1996) (stating that airline employee's breach of contract claim was a minor dispute which must be submitted to arbitration before a system board of adjustment). When we consider this ambiguous statement against the backdrop of the RLA, which provides for grievance resolution before an adjustment board, we hold that the district court correctly concluded that the Warzocha settlement agreement did not supercede the CBA's requirement of submission to the Board.