Opinion ID: 487464
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Enforcement While Mediation is in Progress

Text: 8 45 U.S.C. Sec. 155 First establishes a procedure for settling disputes between employees and the carrier concerning, inter alia, changes in pay, rules, and working conditions. See Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, 377-78, 89 S.Ct. 1109, 1114-15, 22 L.Ed.2d 344 (1969). When such a dispute arises, both parties or either party as part of that procedure may invoke the services of the Board, which shall use its best efforts, by mediation, to bring them to agreement. If such efforts to bring about an amicable settlement through mediation shall be unsuccessful, the said Board shall at once endeavor as its final required action ... to induce the parties to submit their controversy to arbitration.... 45 U.S.C. Sec. 155 First. 9 The Act imposes a number of restrictions upon the conduct of the parties throughout the dispute-settlement procedure. These restrictions include the duty of all carriers, their officers, agents, and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements or otherwise.... 45 U.S.C. Sec. 152 First.
10 The district court held that there is no subject matter jurisdiction over a claim under 45 U.S.C. Sec. 152 First while mediation conducted by the Board is in progress. In support of this holding, Transamerica makes two arguments. 11 The first is that mediation is a sensitive process that will suffer as a result of judicial interference. In support of this argument, Transamerica cites International Association of Machinists v. National Mediation Board, 425 F.2d 527 (D.C.Cir.1970), which held that courts have only limited jurisdiction to scrutinize the Board's decision not to terminate mediation. But this case is not on point. The question whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review Board decisions is not the same as the question whether federal courts have jurisdiction to enforce provisions of the Act. This distinction is central to the Supreme Court's decision not to allow judicial review of the Board's certification of representatives. Switchmen's Union v. National Mediation Bd., 320 U.S. 297, 305-07, 64 S.Ct. 95, 99-100, 88 L.Ed. 61 (1943). Transamerica has presented no case in which deference to the mediation process has restricted the ability of federal courts to enforce the provisions of 45 U.S.C. Sec. 152 First. 12 Transamerica's second argument is that ALPA has presented no case in which a court has allowed enforcement of 45 U.S.C. Sec. 152 First while mediation was in progress. This assertion is accurate. Federal courts, however, do have jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of 45 U.S.C. Sec. 152 First. In Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. United Transportation Union, 402 U.S. 570, 91 S.Ct. 1731, 29 L.Ed.2d 187 (1971), which involved a suit commenced after mediation had been terminated, the Court stated: 13 [W]e think the conclusion inescapable that Congress intended the enforcement of Sec. 2 First [45 U.S.C. Sec. 152 First] to be overseen by appropriate judicial means rather than by the Mediation Board's retaining jurisdiction over the dispute or prematurely releasing the parties for resort to self-help if it feels such action is called for. 14 Id. at 582 (emphasis added). 15 Transamerica has presented no authority restricting federal jurisdiction while mediation is in progress. Similarly, ALPA has presented no case involving litigation undertaken to enforce 45 U.S.C. Sec. 152 First while mediation was in progress. Because Chicago & North Western instructs that enforcement of 45 U.S.C. Sec. 152 First is to be overseen by appropriate judicial means rather than by the Mediation Board's retaining jurisdiction, we conclude that subject matter jurisdiction exists. 16 The district court in its oral ruling held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it saw a technical problem of being able to file a lawsuit while bargaining is going on, and then being able to take depositions of the people who are negotiating and screw up the strategy. Similarly, Transamerica argues that there is no subject matter jurisdiction because deference to the discretion of the Board must be exercised in light of the fact that [c]ollective bargaining under the supervision of a National Mediation Board mediator involves many intricate strategic and tactical moves by both parties. These prudential considerations do not, however, speak to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, which is governed by congressional enactment, and not judicial prudence. 2
17 Transamerica contends that ALPA has failed to allege a violation of 45 U.S.C. Sec. 152 First. In the complaint, however, ALPA alleges that Transamerica has entered into collective bargaining negotiations with ALPA, ostensibly to conclude a new collective bargaining agreement, but in those negotiations it has failed and refused to exert reasonable efforts to reach agreement with ALPA or otherwise to negotiate in good faith with ALPA. This alleged activity violates the requirement in 45 U.S.C. Sec. 152 First that carriers exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, and to settle all disputes. See Chicago & Northwestern, 402 U.S. at 580 n. 11, 91 S.Ct. at 1736 n. 11; Trans Int'l Airlines, Inc. v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 650 F.2d 949, 962 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1110, 101 S.Ct. 918, 66 L.Ed.2d 839 (1981) (The Supreme Court in [Chicago & North Western ] held that [45 U.S.C. Sec. 152 First] imposed a substantive duty on parties, enforceable by injunctive relief, to exert reasonable efforts during the negotiation process to reach an agreement.) Thus, the ALPA complaint states a claim under 45 U.S.C. Sec. 152 First.