Opinion ID: 3028631
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Injunction against Arbitration

Text: As we have discussed, Eastern’s pilots sought to resume arbitration under the CBA. They did so in spite of our rulings that all claims based on the CBA had been discharged in Continental’s bankruptcy. The District Court enjoined the resumption of arbitration against Continental and its pilots. On appeal, Eastern’s pilots challenge this injunction asserting that the Norris-LaGuardia Act (“NLA”) deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to issue it. For reasons similar to those pertaining to the RLA, we reject this contention. The NLA provides that: [n]o court of the United States . . . shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except in a strict conformity with the provisions of this chapter . . . . 29 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added). We apply a four-step analysis to determine whether the Act divests a district court of jurisdiction: -15- we consider (1) whether the action involves a “labor dispute” under 29 U.S.C. § 113(c), and (2) whether the relief fashioned by the district court involves one or more injunctions as defined by the NLA; if these steps are answered affirmatively, we next determine (3) whether the district court complied with the procedural requirements of the NLA, and (4) if the district court failed to so comply, whether a judicially-created exception applies. Lukens Steel Co. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 989 F.2d 668, 675-76 (3d Cir. 1993). The contention of the Eastern pilots fails at step one. The NLA defines a “labor dispute” as: any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. 29 U.S.C. § 113(c). A case involves a labor dispute within this definition if “the employer-employee relationship is the matrix of the controversy.” Lukens Steel, 989 F.2d at 676 (quoting Columbia River Packers Ass’n, Inc. v. Hinton, 315 U.S. 143, 147 (1942) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)).11 11 We have previously found a “labor dispute” when an employer and its employees dispute the terms of the collective bargaining agreement governing their relationship. See, e.g., id. (“[A]n injunction to block an arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement is fully subject to the strictures of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.”) (quoting In re District No. 1-PACIFIC Coast Dist., Marine Eng’rs’ Beneficial Ass’n, 723 F.2d 70, 74 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1983)); United Tel. Workers, AFL-CIO v. Western Union Corp., 771 F.2d 699, 704 (3d Cir. 1985) (“As the present matter concerns negotiations seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, it falls within the coverage of the Act.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Unlike Lukens Steel and Western Union, however, this case presents no dispute between an employer -16- Although the phrase “labor dispute” has been construed broadly, we do not believe such a dispute is involved here. Eastern’s pilots point to no controversy involving the “terms or conditions of employment,” nor about the “representation of persons negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment.” 29 U.S.C. § 113(c). Instead, this case involves one employee group’s claims for money damages against another employee group under a CBA that no longer governs any employer-employee relationship. The “matrix” of this controversy cannot fairly be considered the “employeremployee relationship.” Nor is this result affected by the intention of Eastern’s pilots to use a possible award against Continental’s pilots to obtain seniority integration from Continental. The Eastern pilots have stated that they hope to “use whatever award [we] receive[] against the Continental pilots to have those pilots bargain with Continental to share their seniority with some of [Eastern’s pilots.]” EPMC’s Br. at 46. Such an expectation does not transform this into a dispute with an employer about working conditions. Finally, we reject the argument of Eastern’s pilots that, even assuming jurisdiction, the District Court improperly enjoined the resumption of arbitration. Because Eastern’s pilots seek to arbitrate claims based on the right to seniority integration, they seek relief for claims discharged according to Continental I and Continental II. The Eastern pilots cannot avoid this discharge simply by claiming they will request an award against Continental’s pilots. Indeed, their stated theory of liability against the Continental pilots depends almost entirely on claims against Continental under the CBA. Eastern’s pilots state that the “nexus” giving rise to their claims against Continental’s pilots is “the seniority that the Continental pilots are exercising, coupled with Continental’s commitment to the Eastern pilots that, if there was a merger that affected seniority, ‘provisions shall be made for the integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner.’” EPMC’s Br. at 49 (quoting the CBA). This novel theory is and employees about the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement affecting the terms of employment. -17- essentially a claim seeking to remedy a breach of Continental’s duty under the CBA. We have already determined that all such claims were discharged in bankruptcy, so Eastern’s pilots were rightly enjoined from pursuing one.