Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division/IBT v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
903 F. Supp. 2d 583
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- This case reviews an arbitration Award by SBA No. 1048 sustaining Steven Kawa's dismissal from Norfolk Southern (NSR).
- BMWED challenged the Award under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), seeking vacatur and remand for fraud/corruption by a Board member.
- SDR provision governs discipline hearings; it lacks discovery rights or pre-hearing notice requirements for third-party reports.
- Kerby, NSR Carrier Member, helped draft charge language and assisted in post-hearing appeal responses; he did not view the Hughes report prior to Kawa’s discharge.
- The Hughes report by engineer Hughes was introduced at the on-property hearing, not presented live, and was not disclosed to BMWED beforehand.
- BMWED sponsored a cross-appeal focusing on Kerby’s roles and alleged fraud, but the district court upheld the SBA Award and denied BMWED’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Kerby’s multiple roles violate the RLA and taint the award? | BMWED contends Kerby’s roles breached fairness and impartiality requirements. | NSR argues board composition allowed without restricting role conflicts; independence preserved by neutral member. | No reversible error; Board deference preserved; no fraud/corruption proven. |
| Was the Hughes report fraudulent or baseless amounting to fraud/corruption? | BMWED asserts Hughes’s conclusions were false and knowingly misleading. | NSR/Board denied findings; weight of evidence properly allocated; fraud proven must be extrinsic and clear. | Fraud not proven by clear and convincing evidence; intrinsic disputes do not vacate the award. |
| Can intrinsic fraud in on-property hearings justify vacatur under § 3 First (q)? | BMWED argues on-property fraud should be grounds for vacatur. | Fraud must be by a Board member; intrinsic fraud at hearings insufficient to vacate. | Vacatur denied; intrinsic fraud not enough; extrinsic fraud required. |
| Does the standard of review permit vacatur when disputes concern weight and credibility of evidence? | BMWED challenges weight given to Hughes and credibility determinations. | Court defers to SBA on weighing and credibility; review is narrow. | Yes—court defers; weight of evidence for arbitral board; no basis to vacate. |
| Were BMWED’s abandoned arguments properly waived on summary judgment? | BMWED claimed issues in Third Cause; did not respond, triggering waiver. | NSR argued abandonment; BMWED failed to respond in opposition. | BMWED abandoned First/Second Causes; those were resolved in NSR’s favor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Union Pac. R.R. v. Sheehan, 439 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1978) (scope of review in Adjustment Board cases is very narrow)
- Anderson v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 754 F.2d 202 (7th Cir. 1984) (sufficiency of evidence not reviewable by courts)
- Pitts v. National R.R. Pass. Corp., 603 F.Supp. 1509 (N.D.Ill. 1985) (extrinsic vs intrinsic fraud distinction in RLA reviews)
- Edwards v. St. Louis-S.F.R. Co., 361 F.2d 946 (7th Cir. 1966) (fraud in Board proceedings; court cannot reweigh evidence)
- Goff v. Dakota, M. & E. R.R., 170 F.Supp.2d 912 (D.S.D. 2000) (extrinsic fraud required to vacate a Board award)