Opinion ID: 1309355
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The RLA's Dispute Resolution Framework

Text: The RLA was enacted in 1926 to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of labor disputes between railway carriers and their employees, with the goal of avoiding strikes and the resultant disruption to interstate commerce. See 45 U.S.C. § 151a; see also Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R.R. Co. v. United Transp. Union, 396 U.S. 142, 148, 90 S.Ct. 294, 24 L.Ed.2d 325 (1969). To effectuate this purpose, the RLA imposes distinct dispute resolution procedures for what the Supreme Court has labeled minor and major disputes. See Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 723-25, 65 S.Ct. 1282, 89 L.Ed. 1886 (1945). For major disputes, the RLA requires voluntary processes of negotiation, mediation, voluntary arbitration, and conciliation. Id. at 725, 65 S.Ct. 1282. For minor disputes, [t]he labor-management adjustment boards, created pursuant to 45 U.S.C. § 184, have exclusive jurisdiction. Indep. Union of Flight Attendants v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 789 F.2d 139, 141 (2d Cir.1986); see also Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Chi. River & Ind. R.R. Co., 353 U.S. 30, 39, 77 S.Ct. 635, 1 L.Ed.2d 622 (1957); Ollman v. Special Bd. of Adjustment No. 1063, 527 F.3d 239, 245-46 (2d Cir.2008). This Court has explained the differences between major and minor disputes on several occasions. See, e.g., Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs Div. 269 v. Long Island R.R. Co., 85 F.3d 35, 37-38 (2d Cir.1996); CSX Transp., Inc. v. United Transp. Union, 950 F.2d 872, 874 (2d Cir. 1991); Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 789 F.2d at 140-41. In brief, major disputes relate[ ] to disputes over the formation of collective agreements or efforts to secure them, while minor disputes contemplate[ ] the existence of a collective agreement already concluded or, at any rate, a situation in which no effort is made to bring about a formal change in terms or to create a new one. Elgin, 325 U.S. at 723, 65 S.Ct. 1282. We have specifically held that the category of minor disputes encompasses disciplinary disputes even if involving employee discharge. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 789 F.2d at 141. There is no dispute that Amtrak is a carrier within the meaning of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 151 First, or that Famulare is an employee of such a carrier, 45 U.S.C. § 151 Fifth. There also appears to be no disagreement that Amtrak's termination of Famulare qualified as a minor dispute and therefore was subject to compulsory arbitration before the Board. Here, as noted, Famulare and the United Transportation Union pursued their grievance before one such board, Public Law Board No. 6865, which found in favor of Amtrak. Famulare and the United Transportation Union then appealed to the district court pursuant to § 153 First (q), which set aside the Board's decision, holding that the Board failed to comply with § 152 Third of the RLA.