Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen v. United Transportation Union
700 F.3d 891
6th Cir.2012Background
- UTU and BLET represent different crafts at Norfolk Southern; UTU represents trainmen and conductors, BLET represents engineers.
- Norfolk requires Training program for train service employees to move into engine service; UTU governs before completion, BLET after.
- Stokes and Hall (UTU members) completed Training and were placed on a Virginia Division engineer roster; desired seniority by trainman seniority rather than engineering promotion date.
- A series of side letters and memoranda (2002 Central Region, 2002 BLET letter; 2006 Pocahontas side letter) plus UTU/Norfolk and 1980 BLET agreements created competing seniority rules.
- Board of Public Law 7310 (arbitration board) awarded seniority by train service order, applying cross-cutting provisions; district court denied BLET’s vacatur petition; BLET appealed.
- Court affirmed district court, holding Board acted within its jurisdiction and did not misapply contracts; proper scope of review under the Railway Labor Act remains deferential to arbitrator’s interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board exceeded its jurisdiction under the Arbitration Agreement | BLET argues the Board should follow the parties’ ‘recognized interpretation’ of Article 21. | UTU and Norfolk contend the Board could interpret multiple agreements and reconcile them. | No; Board did not exceed its jurisdiction. |
| Whether the Board’s interpretation of seniority was “arguably construing or applying” the contracts | BLET contends the Board misread/limited Article 21 using side letters. | Board reasonably construed intertwined UTU/BLET contracts and practices. | Board’s interpretation was plausibly grounded in the contracts. |
| Whether the Board invaded BLET’s representational province | Award modified BLET’s agreement by letting UTU terms control BLET members’ seniority. | Board reconciled competing terms; not an impermissible encroachment. | No invasion of representational province. |
Key Cases Cited
- United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 564 (1960) (steelworkers trilogy; narrow review; arbitration intended to resolve disputes within contract)
- United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960) (limits of judicial review; arbitration as private code for labor relations)
- United Paperworkers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987) (standard: whether arbitrator is arguably construing the contract)
- Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504 (2001) (clarified scope of arbitrator authority and review under Steelworkers trilogy)
- Mich. Family Res. v. SEIU Local 517M, 475 F.3d 746 (2007) (en banc; limits deference to arbitrator; “arguably construing” standard refined)
- Titan Tire Corp. of Bryan v. United Steelworkers of Am., Local 890L, 656 F.3d 368 (2011) (reaffirmed deferential Steelworkers framework in Sixth Circuit)
- ABX Air, Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1224, 274 F.3d 1023 (2001) (Sixth Circuit—arbitration review under RLA; limited grounds)
- Johnston Boiler Co. v. Local Lodge No. 893, Int’l Bhd. of Boiler Makers, 753 F.2d 40 (1985) (authority of arbitrators beyond strict submission boundaries)