Opinion ID: 185112
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ALPA's Cross-Appeal: Other Clauses New in 1995

Text: 44 ALPA claims the district court erred in failing to enjoin Northwest from unilaterally implementing provisions other than the Arbitration Clause that the carrier added to the 1995 Conditions and that concern mandatory subjects of bargaining. Northwest counters that ALPA's cross-appeal does not present a ripe controversy in light of the airline's adoption of the scaled-down 1997 Conditions and its subsequent representations concerning their application. For the reasons stated below, we agree with Northwest and dismiss ALPA's cross appeal for want of a ripe controversy. 45 In 1997 Northwest dropped three of the clauses in the 1995 Conditions about which ALPA now complains. ALPA asserts that its challenge to these three clauses remains ripe because Northwest has done nothing ... to alter or revoke the 1995 [Conditions] that have been signed by 1050 Northwest pilots, and that still remain in effect. At oral argument before this court, however, Northwest deliberately and unequivocally represented that the 1997 Conditions supersede any previous Conditions, and that the three clauses deleted in 1997 will not be enforced against persons who signed the 1995 (or prior) Conditions. 46 Although we are aware that voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not ... make the case moot, a claim for injunctive relief still requires some cognizable danger of recurrent violation, something more than the mere possibility which serves to keep the case alive. United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632-33 (1953); see also Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Hess, 745 F.2d 697, 700-01 (D.C. Cir. 1984). ALPA's only response to this requirement is to say that at some time in the future Northwest might not honor its representation to the court. That is insufficient to render ALPA's requests for injunctive relief ripe at this time.If in the future Northwest were to enforce one of the clauses against a signatory employee, or were to indicate its firm intention to do so, Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1984), then the Union would have a ripe claim for injunctive relief; at present, however, the parties have no live dispute ... and whether one will arise in the future is conjectural, Anderson v. Green, 513 U.S. 557, 559 (1995). 47 ALPA's only other concern is with the amended version of the Rules of Conduct clause in the 1997 Conditions. ALPA objected to the Rules of Conduct clause in the 1995 Conditions because it stated that failure to comply with the company's rules and regulations shall be grounds for [ ] termination, but termination is governed by the CBA. In 1997, therefore, Northwest amended the Rules of Conduct provision to provide that Northwest's authority to discipline an employee represented by the Union is subject to the grievance and arbitration provisions of the applicable [CBA].This revision, coupled with Northwest's firm representation that it will enforce the Rules of Conduct provision only to the extent allowed by the 1997 Conditions, would seem to render ALPA's claim for injunctive relief unripe. 48 At oral argument, however, ALPA suggested that the revised Rules of Conduct clause still presents a ripe controversy insofar as it provides that the Company, in its sole discretion, may amend [its] rules, regulations, or policies from time to time. If Northwest ever in its sole discretion changed a rule, regulation, or policy concerning a mandatory subject of bargaining, then it would violate its obligation under the RLA to negotiate such changes with the Union. In response to concern over this part of the Rules of Conduct clause, Northwest represented to the court that, as to mandatory subjects of bargaining, [Northwest] cannot and will not make unilateral changes. Because the union has a legitimate interest. By this representation Northwest acknowledges that the phrase in its sole discretion is implicitly qualified by the laws of the United States, just as if the Condition said provided, however, that Northwest may not make a change concerning a mandatory subject of bargaining without first negotiating with ALPA as required by the RLA. 49 In light of Northwest's representation, we fail to discern any present controversy over the Rules of Conduct clause. The parties agree that the clause does not affect Northwest's obligations under the RLA to negotiate with ALPA. Northwest has not invoked the clause to make any unilateral change concerning a mandatory subject of bargaining, and it unequivocally states that it will not do so in the future. ALPA's claim reduces to the fear that sometime in the future Northwest may renege upon this representation to the court. That possibility is speculative at best, and in our view utterly implausible. But should it ever come to pass, then the doors of the courthouse will be open wide to ALPA.