Opinion ID: 782345
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 Defendant Airborne is a holding company. ABX and Airborne Express (f/k/a AFC) are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Airborne. ABX is an airline subject to the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151. Plaintiff is the collective bargaining representative of the pilots and flight engineers that ABX employs. 3 ABX and Plaintiff signed a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Separate from the CBA, representatives of Teamsters Local 957 (Plaintiff's predecessor) and AFC signed Side Letter 8. 1 In June of 1992, when these parties executed Side Letter 8, AFC was the parent of ABX. In relevant part, Side Letter 8 provides: 4 It is not the intent of Airborne Freight Corporation and neither [AFC] nor any subsidiary shall establish or conduct on its or their own behalf any airline operations, including international operations, of the type covered by Article 1, Section E, Paragraphs 1 and 2, with the exceptions set forth in Paragraph 5 of the Agreement between ABX Air, Inc. and IBT [International Brotherhood of Teamsters], unless such operations are performed by pilots on the ABX Seniority List.... 5 In the event of any dispute over the interpretation or application of this letter, the dispute will be promptly submitted for final and binding arbitration.... Airborne Freight Corporation further agrees that it shall submit to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator ... and ... shall comply with the Arbitrator's award. 6 In December of 2000, a corporate restructuring took place in which: (1) AFC was renamed Airborne Express, Inc.; (2) Defendant Airborne, Inc. was formed; and (3) Airborne Express, Inc. (f/k/a AFC) and ABX became wholly-owned subsidiaries of Defendant Airborne, Inc. 7 On December 21, 2000, after learning about the corporate reorganization, Plaintiff sent a letter to John Starkovich, ABX's Senior Director of Labor Relations, requesting that Defendant re-sign Side Letter 8. Defendant did not reply. On March 15, 2001, Plaintiff sent another letter demanding that Airborne ... proceed to arbitration to determine whether Airborne, as ABX's new parent, had to abide by or re-sign Side Letter 8. 8 On April 5, 2001, Defendant refused Plaintiff's request, questioned whether any arbitrable issue existed, and requested that Plaintiff send all future correspondence to outside counsel, Tom Kassin. Plaintiff repeated its request to Kassin on May 16, 2001. Kassin replied in a June 19, 2001 letter in which he asserted that ABX's new parent, Airborne, is not bound by Side Letter 8. Kassin thus refused Plaintiff's demand for arbitration.