Opinion ID: 185278
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Status Quo Obligations under the RLA

Text: Atlas Air's claim and the district court's judgment arebased on the proposition that the Railway Labor Act imposesno obligation upon carriers to maintain status quo wages,rules or working conditions after the certification of a unionbut before the onset of collective bargaining. RLA Section 2,Seventh, for instance, provides: No carrier, its officers or agents shall change the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions of its employees, as a class as embodied in agreements except in the manner prescribed in such agreements or in section 156 of this title. 45 U.S.C. s 152, Seventh. RLA Section 6 requires thatemployers and employee representatives shall give at leastthirty days' written notice of an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.... Id. s 156. By their express terms, these so-called status quo provisions of the Act only prohibit unilateral changes in wages orworking conditions where there is a preexisting collectivebargaining agreement. See Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 315 U.S. 386, 402-03 (1942) (The prohibitions of s 6against change of wages or conditions pending bargaining andthose of s 2, Seventh, are aimed at preventing changes inconditions previously fixed by collective bargaining agreements.); Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R.R. Co. v. UnitedTransp. Union, 396 U.S. 142, 158 (1969) (status quo changesin working conditions prior to collective bargaining are permissible where there is absolutely no prior history of anycollective bargaining or agreement between the parties onany matter). As this Court recognized in InternationalAss'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v.Trans World Airlines, no power to enjoin unilateral changesin working conditions by management flows from Section 6 ofthe Act in the absence of pre-existing, in place, collective bargaining agreements. 839 F.2d 809, 814 (D.C. Cir. 1988).1 Other circuits have reached the same conclusion. See Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Ass'n v. Atlantic Coast Airlines,Inc., 55 F.3d 90, 93 (2d Cir. 1995) (The RLA simply do[es]not impose an obligation on the carrier to maintain the statusquo in the absence of an agreement.); Regional AirlinePilots Ass'n v. Wings West Airlines, Inc., 915 F.2d 1399, 1402(9th Cir. 1990). Cf. International Ass'n of Machinists andAerospace Workers v. Transportes Aereos Mercantiles PanAmericandos, S.A., 924 F.2d 1005, 1007 (11th Cir. 1991) (RLAprecludes status quo changes once collective bargaining hasbegun). But cf. Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Ass'n v. Atlantic Coast Airlines, Inc., 55 F.3d 90, 92 (2nd Cir. 1995) (Thequestion presented in this lawsuit is whether [certain unilateral changes in conditions of employment] are allowed afterbargaining has commenced ... but before an agreement isreached. We answer the question in the affirmative.). On the basis of these decisions the district court belowruled that the Railway Labor Act imposes no duty to maintain the status quo in a case such as this where a union hasbeen certified, but collective bargaining negotiations have notcommenced and there is no prior agreement between theparties. Atlas, 69 F. Supp. 2d at 164. This is no doubt true. Section 2, Seventh and Section 6 do not require carriers tomaintain status quo working conditions. But, the lack of astatus quo obligation under the RLA does not mean that anychange in the status quo is per se legal. A carrier's actionmay violate other rights or obligations fixed by the RLA.