Opinion ID: 323057
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: proceedings before the board and the united states district court

Text: 3 On 24 April 1972 the Civil Aeronautics Board approved 2 a merger between Delta Air Lines, Inc., and Northeast Airlines, Inc., subject to certain 'labor protective provisions' imposed by the Board for the protection of the employees of both companies who might be adversely affected by the merger. 3 In addition the Board reserved jurisdiction 'to make such amendments, modifications, and additions to the labor protective conditions . . . as the circumstances may require . . ..' 4 4 At all pertinent times the Air Line Pilots Association ('ALPA') was the certified bargaining representative for employees of both airlines. Pursuant to ALPA's internal procedure for seniority integration, 5 the Master Executive Councils ('MEC's') 6 of Delta and Northeast each designated two merger representatives for the purpose of arriving at a single integrated seniority list. When on 5 June 1972 the negotiations culminated in agreement between the merger representatives, ALPA transmitted the list for acceptance by Delta, the surviving airline. By agreement of 26 October 1972 Delta agreed to modify its existing collective bargaining agreement with ALPA so as to implement the new list. 5 Shortly after its publication, however, the Northeast MEC sought to repudiate the list. ALPA president O'Donnell declined pleas to reject the list and explained that since the merger representatives, not the MEC's, had been delegated complete authority under ALPA merger policy to compile a merged list, no authority existed in either MEC to alter its terms once the merger representatives reached an accord.
6 The disgruntled Northeast pilots filed three separate actions in District Court in an effort to set aside the integrated list. In Northeast Pilots Master Executive Council v. O'Donnell and ALPA, 7 the Northeast MEC sought 'on its own behalf and on behalf of more than 540 pilots which it represents' to enjoin ALPA from executing an agreement with Delta incorporating or acknowledging the integrated seniority list. The pilots' central argument was that the merger representatives had exceeded the scope of their authority and that the resulting agreement was violative of the Railway Labor Act 8 'in that it purports to eliminate the right of any aggrieved pilot or group of pilots to petition for a hearing before the System Board of Adjustment as provided by 45 U.S.C.A. sec. 184.' Citing Hyland v. United Air Lines, Inc., 9 the District Court dismissed the action, holding that exclusive jurisdiction over the controversy lay with the Civil Aeronautics Board. No appeal was taken. 7 A second suit, W. Peter Carey, et al. v. J. J. O'Donnell and ALPA, 10 was filed in District Court on 2 April 1973 by five named plaintiffs 'on their own behalf and on behalf of more than 540 former Northeast pilots who are now employed by Delta Air Lines, Inc.' Again the District Court held that the Board had exclusive jurisdiction and dismissed the action. 8 A third action, George S. Chaudoin, et al. v. ALPA and Delta Air Lines, Inc., 11 filed 19 April 1973 as a class action on behalf of former employees of Northeast Airlines, Inc., was dismissed as barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. 9 The Carey and Chaudoin dismissals were appealed to this court, were consolidated for our consideration, and are treated together in the appended opinion of this date. 10
11 On 4 October 1972, after unsuccessful efforts in District Court, the Northeast MEC filed with the Board a Petition for the Exercise of Reserved Jurisdiction. The MEC alleged that the '540 flight deck officers represented by NE MEC will soon have imposed upon them an integrated seniority list that is not fair and equitable.' The Board dismissed the petition: 12 In sum, it has been, and continues to be, our view that absent a showing of bad faith, the adoption by a carrier of an integrated seniority list proposed by the collective bargaining representatives of the employees involved amounts to the carrier having made 'provisions . . . for the integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner' within the meaning of section 3 of the Board's labor protective provisions. 12 13 Northeast M.E.C. filed the instant petition to review the Board's order.