Opinion ID: 504004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiffs' suit against Pan American

Text: 11 Labor disputes in the airline industry are governed by the RLA. 45 U.S.C. Sec. 181. The RLA (unlike the National Labor Relations Act, which covers other industries) mandates the establishment of arbitration panels called Adjustment Boards composed of members selected by the air carriers and by labor organizations representing the employees. Id. Secs. 153, 184-185. The Adjustment Boards have jurisdiction to consider disputes between air carriers and their employees growing out of grievances, or out of interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.... Id. Sec. 184. The final decisions of the Adjustment Boards are final and binding upon both parties to the dispute. Id. Sec. 153 (First)(m). The awards of the Adjustment Boards can be enforced through the federal courts, Id. Sec. 153 (First)(p), and are subject to limited judicial review, Id. Sec. 153 (First)(q). 12 The congressional purpose in setting up these procedures in the RLA was to keep these disputes within the Adjustment Board and out of the courts. Union Pacific R.R. v. Sheehan, 439 U.S. 89, 94, 99 S.Ct. 399, 402, 58 L.Ed.2d 354 (1978). The arbitration procedures established by the Railway Labor Act are mandatory and provide the exclusive forum for the resolution of grievances and for the interpretation of contracts under that Act. Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville R.R., 406 U.S. 320, 322-24, 92 S.Ct. 1562, 1564-65, 32 L.Ed.2d 95 (1972); Bautista v. Pan Am World Airlines, 828 F.2d 546, 551 (9th Cir.1987); Independent Union of Flight Attendants v. Pan American World Airways, 789 F.2d 139, 141 (2d Cir.1986); Crusos v. United Transp. Union, Local 1201, 786 F.2d 970, 972 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 409, 93 L.Ed.2d 361 (1986). The only alternative to the Adjustment Board is voluntary binding arbitration using arbitrators chosen by the parties. 45 U.S.C. Secs. 157-159. 13 The claim of the commissary workers against Pan Am for breach of contract requires the interpretation of the terms of a collective bargaining contract. The key legal issues are the duration of the No Layoff Guarantee and whether or not it is amendable. Jurisdiction to consider these questions lies exclusively with the appropriate Adjustment Board. The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the merits of this case by granting summary judgment in favor of Pan Am. Jurisdiction of federal courts in this matter is restricted to limited review of the decisions of the Adjustment Board. Id. Sec. 153 (First)(q). 14 In a similar case brought by another group of former Pan Am commissary workers arising out of the same events, the Ninth Circuit reached the same result, finding that the district court had no jurisdiction over the workers' breach of contract claim against Pan Am because the RLA grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Adjustment Board. Bautista, 828 F.2d at 552. See also Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Western Pacific R.R., 809 F.2d 607 (9th Cir.) (suit claiming lifetime employment contract dismissed since Adjustment Board has exclusive jurisdiction), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 155, 98 L.Ed.2d 110 (1987). 15 Disputes growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of existing collective bargaining agreements, which are the exclusive province of the Adjustment Boards, have been termed minor disputes to distinguish them from major disputes. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Ry. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 722-28, 65 S.Ct. 1282, 1289-92, 89 L.Ed. 1886 (1945); Air Cargo, Inc. v. Local Union 851, Int'l Bd. of Teamsters, 733 F.2d 241, 245 (2d Cir.1984); Local 553, Transport Workers Union v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 695 F.2d 668, 673-75 (2d Cir.1982). Major disputes concern the formation of collective [bargaining] agreements or efforts to secure them. Elgin, 325 U.S. at 723, 65 S.Ct. at 1290. In major disputes the issue is not whether an existing agreement controls the controversy. They [major disputes] look to the acquisition of rights for the future, not to assertion of rights claimed to have vested in the past. Id. Plaintiffs argue that their claim against Pan Am is a major dispute over which federal courts have jurisdiction, citing Seaboard World Airlines v. Transport Workers Union, 425 F.2d 1086, 1090 (2d Cir.1970). 4 Yet the workers are asserting rights which they contend have vested in the past. The No Layoff Guarantee vested on December 24, 1980. The plaintiffs argue that it did not expire when the Basic Agreement expired on December 31, 1984, and was not amended by the new contract that was ratified on March 27, 1985. Whether the workers are correct in those assertions depends on interpretation of the terms of the 1980 agreements. If the question of whether a dispute is major or minor is close, it should be viewed as being minor unless the carrier's contractual justification is obviously insubstantial and the contract is not reasonably susceptible to the carrier's interpretation. Local 553, 695 F.2d at 673. The position taken by Pan Am is not obviously insubstantial. Therefore, the dispute to be resolved is minor and exclusive jurisdiction for resolving this dispute lies with the Adjustment Board. 16 Because the district court had no jurisdiction to resolve this dispute, the summary judgment in favor of Pan Am must be vacated and the case against Pan Am must be remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.