Court Opinion

ID: 8960104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-27 09:40:09.110324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:10:11.450004
License: Public Domain

LAY, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I cannot agree that the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 10101-11917 (1982) (ICA), was intended to supersede the mandatory bargaining requirements of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-188 (1982) (RLA). I do not believe that Congress intended the ICA proceedings to be a means of providing labor security and protection which is inherent under the mandatory bargaining procedure of the RLA. The ICA focuses on national transportation policy. See 49 U.S.C. § 10101a. Although the interest of labor may be asserted in proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), I agree with the Third Circuit's view that it is highly unlikely “that Congress intended that rail labor look for its sole protection to an agency that lacks expertise in this field.” Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R., 845 F.2d 420, 446 (3d Cir.1988). It is clear to me that the ICC lacks expertise in the field of labor security. I respectfully conclude that Congress did not intend to include labor protective conditions within the ICC proceedings so as to supersede labor’s protective mechanisms under the Railway Labor Act.