Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen v. Union Pacific Railroad
879 F.3d 754
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Union Pacific (Railroad) replaced an existing disciplinary regime called UPGRADE with a new policy (MAPS) in 2015 without bargaining with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (Union).
- The Union claims MAPS is a unilateral change to mandatory bargaining subjects (rules/working conditions) under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and that the dispute is "major," so federal court jurisdiction is proper.
- The Railroad contends MAPS falls within contractual authority (including past practice under UPGRADE) and therefore any dispute is a "minor" one for arbitration.
- The Railroad submitted a declaration that it historically modified UPGRADE provisions; the Union denies acquiescence but concedes the Railroad historically made changes.
- The Union also argues MAPS conflicts with Article 18 of the Southern Pacific Western Lines Agreement (requiring expungement of >5-year-old discipline), claiming MAPS’ three-strike rule counts old license revocations. The Railroad says license revocations may be excepted (FRA-related) and that arbitration should resolve the tension.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (directing arbitration); the Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding the Railroad’s arguments non-frivolous and arbitration appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MAPS is a "major" unilateral change (court jurisdiction) or a "minor" contractual interpretation (arbitration) | MAPS was implemented without bargaining and changes mandatory bargaining subjects, so this is a major dispute for the courts | MAPS is within the scope of existing CBA/past practice (UPGRADE) so dispute is minor and must be arbitrated | Held: Railroad made non-frivolous showing; dispute is minor → dismissal for arbitration |
| Whether contractual silence authorizes unilateral change | Silence does not permit changes to mandatory subjects; RLA requires contract authorization or bargaining | Past arbitration awards and practice can supply contractual authority; past practice may imply authority | Held: Broad rule that silence equals authority rejected; but here past practice evidence makes Railroad’s position non-frivolous, so arbitration appropriate |
| Whether MAPS conflicts with Article 18 (expungement of >5-year-old discipline) such that MAPS is necessarily a major change | MAPS’ three-strike rule counts past revocations and cannot coexist with Article 18, so MAPS effectually changes the agreement | License revocations may fall within Article 18’s exceptions (FRA/safety rule-related) and arbitration should resolve any compatibility question | Held: Railroad’s compatibility argument is non-frivolous; compatibility is for arbitrator to decide |
| Whether direct dealing or other RLA violations create independent federal jurisdiction | Direct dealing with members and polling undermined the Union and makes arbitration inadequate | Railroad plausibly believed it had contractual authority; arbitration is available and not shown to be inadequate; no extraordinary weakening of the union alleged | Held: No exceptional circumstances shown; no independent jurisdiction—arbitration remains appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299 (major-minor distinction; courts hear major disputes; minor disputes go to arbitration)
- Airline Pilots Ass’n Int’l v. Nw. Airlines, 199 F.3d 477 (D.C. Cir.) (carrier unilateral-change doctrine where no contractual authority exists)
- Chicago & N. W. Transp. Co. v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 908 F.2d 144 (7th Cir.) (treats major/minor taxonomy and role of contractual terms, including practice)
- Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 138 F.3d 635 (7th Cir.) (past practice and implied terms relevant to contract interpretation under RLA)
- Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (distinguishing cases that question whether any agreement exists at all)
- Janiga v. Questar Capital Corp., 615 F.3d 735 (7th Cir.) (contract-formation questions reserved for courts where applicable)
- Bhd. of Ry., Airline & S.S. Clerks v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 847 F.2d 403 (7th Cir.) (direct dealing doctrine and narrow circumstances for independent federal jurisdiction)