Opinion ID: 526734
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Dispatchers' Case

Text: 14 In March 1982, the ICC approved the application of NWS Enterprises, Inc. (now Norfolk Southern, or NS), a holding company, to acquire control of two previously separate carriers--the Norfolk and Western Railway Company (N & W) and the Southern Railway Company (Southern). Norfolk Southern Corp.--Control--Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 366 I.C.C. 173 (1982) (NS Control ). As in The Carmen's Case, the ICC imposed upon the parties to the transaction the standard New York Dock conditions. Id. at 231. 15 The American Train Dispatchers' Association was the bargaining representative of certain N & W employees responsible for power distribution. In September 1986, N & W and Southern informed the Association that they intended to coordinate certain [N & W] work performed in the System Operations Center ... in Roanoke, Virginia into the [Southern] Control Center in Atlanta, Georgia, and in so doing, to abolish several supervisory positions at Roanoke. The carriers proposed an implementing agreement whereby the affected N & W supervisors would be given consideration for employment in new positions as Superintendents in Atlanta. Superintendents there were considered management employees, however, and were not covered by any CBA. 16 Attempts to negotiate an implementing agreement foundered over the Association's contentions that (1) the carriers' proposal was subject to mandatory bargaining under the RLA; (2) the carriers were required to preserve the right of the transferred employees to representation under RLA Sec. 2, Fourth, 45 U.S.C. Sec. 152, Fourth; and (3) the affected employees were entitled to retain their rights, including their seniority rights, under the CBA with N & W. The carriers then asked the National Mediation Board to appoint an arbitrator pursuant to the New York Dock conditions. As in The Carmen's Case, the dispute came before a three-member arbitration committee (the Dispatchers' Committee), which ruled in favor of the carriers on each of the disputed issues. 17 The rationale of the Dispatchers' Committee with respect to the CBA and the RLA was essentially the same as that of the Carmen Committee. It concluded that (1) it had the power to abrogate any CBA or RLA provision that impeded implementation of the ICC-approved merger of the N & W and the Southern; (2) the transfer of distribution functions, though not specifically considered in the NS Control case, was part of the control transaction; and (3) apparently because application of the N & W CBA to Superintendents at Southern would impede the transfer, transferred employees could not retain their rights under that CBA. 18 On June 6, 1987, after the ICC had denied the Association's application for a stay of the Committee's award, the carriers effected the work transfer authorized thereby. On June 10, 1988, the ICC affirmed the Committee in all respects, stating, in particular, that the Committee's third ruling was supported by the record insofar as [i]mposition of the collective bargaining agreement would jeopardize the transaction because the work rules it mandates are inconsistent with the carriers' underlying purpose of integrating the power distribution function. The ICC also rejected the Association's claim that the transfer would deprive the employees of their right to representation under Section 2, Fourth of the RLA, reasoning that [the Association's] rights as an incumbent bargaining representative are for determination by the National Mediation Board. 19 In its petition for review, the Association maintains that the ICC lacks authority under the Act to relieve the carrier of its obligation under the RLA and its CBA, and that its decision depriving the employees of their rights under the CBA violates the Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment.