68 F. Supp. 3d 66
D.D.C.2014Background
- United merged with Continental in 2010; legacy United and legacy Continental pilots remained represented by ALPA and retained separate seniority lists and pre-merger CBAs.
- Prior to closing the merger parties signed a Transition and Process Agreement (TPA) and later a Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (JCBA) effective Jan 1, 2013; JCBA includes LOA 26 acknowledging that some provisions would not be implemented until seniority lists were integrated.
- LOA 26 created a Joint Implementation Team and provided that until seniority integration pilots would operate under prior CBAs for unimplemented provisions.
- In Jan 2013 United issued Vacancy Bid 14-02 for 589 positions limited to legacy Continental pilots; legacy United pilot Gullaksen filed a grievance which ALPA declined to advance to the System Board and United denied relief.
- Plaintiffs sued United (breach of the JCBA) and ALPA (breach of the duty of fair representation), alleging collusion, concealment of JCBA interpretation, failure to prosecute the grievance, and allowing Continental committee to exploit the vacancies.
- Court considered ALPA’s decisionmaking documents (TPA, JCBA, LOA 26, grievance records) and granted both defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did ALPA breach duty of fair representation? | ALPA colluded with United, concealed its JCBA interpretation, failed to prosecute Gullaksen’s grievance, and allowed Continental exploitation of vacancies. | ALPA acted rationally and in good faith under LOA 26 and JCBA; it reasonably concluded the bid was proper and the grievance not meritorious. | Dismissed: plaintiffs failed to plead arbitrariness, bad faith, or invidious discrimination; ALPA’s conduct was rational and non-perfunctory. |
| Was ALPA’s refusal to arbitrate arbitrary/perfunctory? | Refusal to submit the grievance and not appealing to System Board was wrongful and perfunctory. | ALPA evaluated the grievance at multiple levels, explained its reasoning, and in good faith declined to pursue it. | Dismissed: ALPA considered the grievance and provided reasoned explanations; no DFR breach. |
| Can plaintiffs bring breach-of-contract claim in district court (RLA preemption/hybrid claim)? | Arbitration would be futile because of ALPA’s alleged collusion; court jurisdiction proper under the hybrid exception. | The contract claim is a minor dispute under the Railway Labor Act and subject to the System Board; hybrid jurisdiction requires a valid DFR claim. | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: hybrid exception fails because plaintiffs did not state a DFR claim. |
| Were plaintiffs’ allegations of concealment and collusion sufficiently pleaded? | Plaintiffs contend concealment of JCBA interpretation and collusion with United. | Allegations are conclusory; plaintiffs point to disagreement over interpretation, not hidden communications or deceit. | Dismissed: conclusory allegations insufficient under Twombly/Iqbal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must allege enough facts to raise entitlement to relief above speculative level)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (union duty of fair representation standard)
- Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (deferential review of union performance; arbitrariness standard)
- DelCostello v. Int’l Broth. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (hybrid §301/RLA claims and arbitration preemption)
- Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, 525 U.S. 33 (union conduct arbitrary only when irrational)