779 F.3d 1069
9th Cir.2015Background
- ASIG (Aircraft Service International Group) suspended fueler Alex Popescu; other fuelers, assisted by Working Washington, organized and voted to strike to protest the suspension and alleged retaliation.
- Working Washington publicized the strike vote; ASIG filed for injunctive and declaratory relief two days after a press conference announcing the vote.
- The district court issued a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction prohibiting the planned strike, analyzing Winter factors and concluding the Railway Labor Act (RLA) preempted the Norris‑LaGuardia Act (NLGA) restrictions.
- The district court did not analyze NLGA § 8 (the “clean hands” provision) before issuing the injunction.
- The Ninth Circuit majority held that even if the RLA can displace NLGA § 4, a party seeking an injunction under the RLA must still satisfy NLGA § 8 by making “every reasonable effort” to settle the dispute before seeking court relief; the record contained no evidence ASIG did so, so the injunction was vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ASIG) | Defendant's Argument (Fuelers/Working Washington) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may issue an injunction to enjoin an airport strike when the dispute involves RLA matters without the complainant first satisfying NLGA § 8 | RLA mandates and purpose (avoiding interruptions) permit injunctions and preempt NLGA limits, so ASIG need not satisfy § 8 before seeking injunctive relief | NLGA § 8 requires complainants to make every reasonable effort to settle a labor dispute before obtaining injunctive relief even when the RLA is implicated | Held: A party seeking an injunction under the RLA must still comply with NLGA § 8; ASIG failed to show it made every reasonable effort, so injunction reversed and vacated. |
| Whether NLGA § 4 is categorically displaced by the RLA in disputes like this | ASIG: RLA takes precedence and allows courts to enjoin strikes to enforce RLA duties | Defendants: NLGA limits remain unless RLA clearly displaces them; but § 8 is independent | Held: RLA can create a narrow exception to § 4, but that does not eliminate § 8’s separate "clean hands" requirement. |
| What constitutes compliance with NLGA § 8 ("every reasonable effort") | ASIG: minimal pre-filing contacts suffice (or no obligation absent a certified representative) | Defendants: § 8 requires meaningful attempts at negotiation/mediation; lack of reasonable efforts bars relief | Held: § 8 requires at least basic, sincere efforts to confer and negotiate; ASIG made no such showing here. |
| Whether public‑interest or RLA policy can overcome noncompliance with NLGA § 8 | ASIG and dissent: public interest in avoiding airport disruption can justify injunction despite § 8 noncompliance | Majority: no recognized public‑interest exception to the plain language of § 8; compliance is prerequisite | Held: Court declines to create a public‑interest exception to § 8; plain § 8 compliance required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Toledo, P. & W. R.R., 321 U.S. 50 (1944) (establishes NLGA § 8 "clean hands" requirement in labor injunction context)
- Burlington N. R.R. v. Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps., 481 U.S. 429 (1987) (explains narrow accommodation between RLA and NLGA § 4)
- Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 491 U.S. 490 (1989) (discusses precedence of specific RLA provisions over NLGA § 4)
- Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. United Transp. Union, 402 U.S. 570 (1971) (permits injunctions to enforce RLA duties when necessary; interprets RLA § 2, First)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (sets preliminary injunction multi‑factor test applied by district court)
- Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Chicago River & Ind. R.R., 353 U.S. 30 (1957) (permitted injunction to avoid rendering RLA obligations nugatory)
- Switchmen’s Union of N. Am. v. S. Pac. Co., 398 F.2d 443 (9th Cir. 1968) (applies § 8 analysis; examines carrier’s good‑faith conferral obligations)
- Trans Int’l Airlines, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 650 F.2d 949 (9th Cir. 1980) (considers § 8 in RLA context)
- United Air Lines, Inc. v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 243 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2001) (discusses interplay of § 8, public interest, and RLA; cited in dissent)
- Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Akron & Barberton Belt R.R., 385 F.2d 581 (D.C. Cir. 1967) (holds § 8 enforcement can further RLA objectives)