925 F. Supp. 2d 1252
D. Wyo.2013Background
- Hylan was terminated as a locomotive engineer by BNSF for allegedly excessive absences.
- Hylan and his union filed a grievance with the National Railroad Adjustment Board (NRAB).
- NRAB awarded back pay for time lost and sustained the claim defined as no deduction of outside earnings; the order stated the relief sought and that the claim was sustained.
- BNSF later claimed the NRAB award allowed offsetting back pay by outside earnings and sought records of earnings.
- Petitioners sought to enforce the NRAB order in federal court under 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (p); BNSF moved to dismiss or remand for clarification.
- The court held subject-matter jurisdiction exists and the NRAB order is unambiguous in precluding any offset of back pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to enforce the NRAB order | Petitioners rely on § 153 First (p) to enforce the NRAB order. | BNSF argues lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the order is ambiguous. | Court has jurisdiction under § 1331 and § 153 First (p). |
| Whether the NRAB order is ambiguous about offsetting back pay | Order, read as a whole, defines the claim to preclude offsets for outside earnings. | Order is silent on offsetting because the award only says 'Claim sustained'. | Order is unambiguous; offset is precluded. |
| Whether the NRAB order unambiguously prohibits offset | Definition of 'claim' precludes offset, and the award states 'Claim sustained'. | Ambiguity exists if the award is read in isolation. | Unambiguously prohibits offset; the petition to enforce should be granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. Blackett, 538 F.2d 291 (10th Cir.1976) (an award stating 'claim sustained' is unequivocal and enforces the full claim)
- Bhd. Locomotive Eng’rs v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 500 F.3d 591 (7th Cir.2007) (remand for clarification if an arbitration award is too ambiguous to enforce)
- Bhd. Ry. Carmen Div. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 956 F.2d 156 (7th Cir.1992) (district court cannot interpret an ambiguous arbitration award; Board clarifies)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 558 U.S. 67 (2009) (enforcement of NRAB awards under § 153 First; interpretive framework)