742 F.3d 1110
9th Cir.2014Background
- ASIG provides aircraft services at Sea-Tac and refuels about 75% of planes there.
- Popescu was indefinitely suspended on September 14, 2012; parties dispute reasons.
- Employees organized a group response to reinstate Popescu, with Working Washington involved.
- Employees voted to strike for up to eight hours; ASIG filed suit in Oct 2012 seeking injunctive relief.
- District court issued TRO and then a strike injunction prohibiting certain strike-related conduct.
- Appellants appeal jurisdiction and argue the injunction violates First Amendment rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to issue the strike injunction | Employees contend NLGA bars injunctions; RLA provides no jurisdiction. | ASIG argues RLA §2 First gives courts power to enforce duty and issue injunctions. | District court jurisdiction affirmed; RLA permits injunctive relief. |
| Section 2 First duty scope on carrier employees | Section 2 First is policy, not independent duty, not applicable to Fuellers. | Section 2 First imposes independent mandatory duty to exert effort and settle disputes. | Section 2 First imposes an independent mandatory duty; strike barred absent RLA procedures. |
| First Amendment balance of the injunction | Strike injunction violates speech rights by broad restraint. | In light of RLA duty, injunction is permissible to prevent interstate commerce disruption. | Injunction upheld; First Amendment rights limited in service of RLA objectives. |
| NLGA Section 8 compliance before injunction | ASIG complied with NLGA §8 before seeking injunction. | NLGA §8 requires more, and failure voids jurisdiction. | Not necessary to decide under majority; district court's action upheld under RLA framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Northern R.R. Co. v. Bhd. Maint. of Way Emps., 481 U.S. 429 (1987) (NLGA and RLA interplay; purpose to avoid commerce disruption)
- Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. v. United Transp. Union, 402 U.S. 570 (1971) (Section 2 First as duty, not mere policy; limits on judicial interference)
- Virginian Ry. Co. v. System Federation No. 40, 300 U.S. 515 (1937) (2 First interpreted as policy buttressed by other provisions)
- Int'l Ass’n of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740 (1961) (Railway labor act's purpose to stabilize labor relations through collective bargaining)
- Summit Airlines v. Teamsters Local Union No. 295, 628 F.2d 787 (2d Cir.1980) (Section 2 First as general obligation to resolve disputes; compulsory representation issues)
- Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. Co. v. Ry. Labor Execs. Ass’n, 491 U.S. 490 (1989) (NLGA does not bar enforcement of RLA compliance orders)
- Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Allied Int’l, Inc., 456 U.S. 212 (1982) (First Amendment concerns weighed against unlawful actions that affect commerce)