Opinion ID: 71650
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims Against United

Text: Plaintiffs' claims against United are for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs allege that by way of the letters of employment sent to them from United, United promised to protect the plaintiffs from the harassment they received after the strike in 1985. Additionally, plaintiffs attach to their original complaint the Back-to-Work agreement and Letter of Agreement between United and ALPA as evidence of United's promise to protect its employees. In plaintiffs' original complaint at paragraph 50, they allege that the ALPA owes the plaintiffs, who are all part of the bargaining unit at United, a duty of fair representation. 4 Thus, the plaintiffs, in effect, allege that they are, or were, members of ALPA. Further evidence of the plaintiffs' union membership includes the fact that the plaintiffs are all United pilots and that ALPA is the bargaining unit for all pilots employed by United. Resolution of whether United breached a promise made to plaintiffs and the ALPA to protect the plaintiffs from harassment necessarily depends on the interpretation of the CBAs for the following reasons. United's duty to confront the post-strike harassment on the plaintiffs' behalf comes from the language of both the 4 In the plaintiffs' original complaint, they stated a claim for violation of a duty of fair representation under the RLA. Subsequently, plaintiffs dropped this claim in their amended complaint filed on March 23, 1994. Back-to-Work agreement and Letter of Agreement which are both part of the CBA. The Back-to-Work agreement was collectively bargained between ALPA and United. The agreement also states that it is subject to the 1985 collective bargaining agreement already in place at the time the Back-to-Work agreement was completed. The Letter of Agreement was also collectively bargained and in its first paragraph makes reference to the fact that it is entered into in accordance with the provisions of the RLA. See Pyles, 79 F.3d at 1050 (where the identical language contained in a letter of agreement was one of the factors used by the court in determining that a claim for breach of contract was preempted by the RLA). Thus, these agreements are part of the CBA, and any claims against United for breaches of the duties or representations contained therein necessarily require interpretation of the CBAs and are, therefore, preempted by the RLA. Moreover, the ability of United to confront and discipline the harassment by ALPA members, or install preventative measures against the harassment, depends on the authority granted to United through the CBAs. United's ability to affect the employment situation of ALPA members is governed exclusively through the CBAs. Thus, any alleged breach of contract or fraudulent misrepresentation claim made against United is preempted by the RLA on the basis that resolution of such claims requires the interpretation of the CBA of 1985, the Back-to-Work agreement and the Letter of Agreement entered into by United and ALPA on behalf of United employees.