Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division/IBT v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 745 F.3d 808

Brotherhood sought a permanent injunction to bar Norfolk Southern from using Hughes’ accident reconstruction reports in investigations unless new pre-hearing procedures are imposed.
District Court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, treating the dispute as a minor dispute within the RLA’s exclusive arbitration framework.
Four Brotherhood members were terminated after investigations where Hughes’ reports were admitted as evidence without the employees being informed or cross-examined.
Discipline Rule requires a fair and impartial investigation with written notice, but does not establish detailed pre-hearing evidentiary rules or external expert disclosure.
Parties pursued RLA procedures: investigations followed by appeals to Norfolk, then to a Special Board of Adjustment; separate federal case sought injunctive relief.
Court analyzes whether the dispute is minor (within arbitration) or major (federal court jurisdiction) under Consolidated Rail and the RLA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the dispute is minor or major under the RLA	Brotherhood: dispute is not restrictively arbitrable; seeks federal relief under 45 U.S.C. § 152 First.	Norfolk: dispute is minor, governed by the Discipline Rule and arbitration under § 153.	Dispute deemed minor; within exclusive RLA jurisdiction; district court’s dismissal affirmed.
Whether Hughes’ expert reports were justified by implied contractual terms	Brotherhood argues lack of disclosure and cross-examination violates fair process; implied terms not met.	Use of reports was arguably justified by past practice and implied terms of the collective bargaining agreement.	Yes; use of Hughes’ reports was justified by implied contractual terms and past practices.

Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299 (1989) (minor vs major dispute framework; past practice informs implied terms)
Elgin J. & E. Ry. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711 (1945) (major/minor distinction in railway labor disputes)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood, 847 F.2d 403 (7th Cir. 1988) (minor dispute; arbitration board jurisdiction)
Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. v. United Transportation Union, 402 U.S. 570 (1971) (CNW: injunction precedent; limits on court intervention)
Ryan v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 286 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2002) (interpretation of § 153; ‘usual manner’ distinction)
Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs & Trainmen v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 719 F.3d 801 (7th Cir. 2013) (deferential review; Board expertise in industry matters)
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2008) (subject-matter jurisdiction; dismissal when lacking jurisdiction)
Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299 (1989) (major/minor dispute framework; implied terms analysis)
Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960) (arbitration as exclusive remedy and deference to arbitration)