905 F.3d 537
7th Cir.2018Background
- Richard Griff began as a locomotive engineer, was later promoted to supervisory/managerial roles, and elected to retain engineer seniority under Article 9 by continuing union dues.
- Union Pacific fired Griff in February 2013 for falsifying safety and training documentation; the railroad treated managerial positions as outside the collective-bargaining discipline rule that guarantees a predeprivation hearing for "locomotive engineers."
- Union Pacific refused to allow Griff to exercise his seniority post-termination; Griff and the Brotherhood argued Article 9 permitted post-termination return to engineer status and therefore entitled him to the pretermination hearing in the discipline rule.
- The Brotherhood submitted the grievance to the National Railroad Adjustment Board (First Division); the Board concluded managers cannot exercise seniority after termination for cause, but required the carrier to have a good-faith basis to fire a manager who retained Article 9 rights; the Board found Union Pacific met that standard and denied relief.
- The Brotherhood sued in federal court challenging the Board’s award on jurisdictional, Railway Labor Act, and due-process grounds; the district court granted summary judgment for Union Pacific.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting all challenges and awarding Rule 38 sanctions to Union Pacific for a frivolous appeal; Union Pacific to submit costs and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Board jurisdiction to decide whether Griff was an "engineer" | Board lacked authority to conclude Griff was not an engineer because its jurisdiction covers disputes "involving" engineers only | Board had jurisdiction because Griff claimed engineer status under the CBA, thus triggering the Board to decide application of contract terms to him | Board had jurisdiction; it may resolve disputes that determine whether a claimant falls within covered categories |
| Board’s imposition of a good-faith requirement on employer | Board exceeded jurisdiction by regulating supervisors outside its scope | Board applied the CBA to decide whether a disputed beneficiary (Griff) had rights; that is within its remit | Board acted within jurisdiction in applying the CBA and requiring a good-faith basis where Article 9 granted potential rights |
| Due process: insufficiency of evidence for good-faith finding | Board lacked evidentiary basis to accept Union Pacific’s stated reason in good faith; thus hearing required | Union Pacific presented its reason; Brotherhood did not dispute the factual basis before the Board and raised pure contract law issues | No due-process violation: arbitral due process is relaxed, evidence presented and not contested, so Board reasonably accepted carrier’s good-faith explanation |
| Railway Labor Act / "usual manner" requirement | Board violated §153 First(i) by not remanding to carrier for the usual-manner (on-property) investigation on the good-faith question | "Usual manner" governs carrier procedures, not the Board; Board may interpret CBA and resolve disputes after usual-manner efforts fail | No RLA violation: "usual manner" applies to carrier-level procedures; the Board properly interpreted the CBA and denied a hearing under its terms |
| Rule 38 sanctions | (implicit) appeal was non-frivolous | Appeal was frivolous: arguments contradicted clear precedent and the Board’s opinion | Sanctions granted; Union Pacific to submit accounting for fees and costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Sheehan, 439 U.S. 89 (arbitral award may be set aside only on narrow statutory grounds)
- Hill v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 814 F.2d 1192 (7th Cir.) (private carrier action not a Fifth Amendment violation)
- Tice v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 288 F.3d 313 (7th Cir.) (Adjustment Boards have exclusive jurisdiction over CBA disputes in railroad/airline industries)
- United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574 (arbitrators may look to industry practices when interpreting CBAs)
- Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. CSX Transp., Inc., 446 F.3d 714 (7th Cir.) (arbitral due-process standards are relaxed; adequate notice, hearing, impartial decision required)
- Ryan v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 286 F.3d 456 (7th Cir.) ("usual manner" under §153 First(i) refers to carrier procedures, not Board process)
- Arnold v. Villarreal, 853 F.3d 384 (7th Cir.) (Rule 38 frivolous-appeal standard)