Krakowski v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (In re Amr Corp.)
598 B.R. 365
Bankr. S.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Plaintiffs are three former TWA pilots (now American Airlines pilots) who sought to vacate an interest-arbitration award under LOA 12-05 and a Protocol Agreement between American and the Allied Pilots Association (APA). The arbitration resolved alternative contractual rights after abrogation of prior seniority protections.
- LOA 12-05 provided for final, binding interest arbitration under Section 7 of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) before a three-arbitrator panel (Bloch, Goldberg, Jaffe); the Protocol Agreement made AA and APA the parties to the arbitration and allowed certain ex parte informal discussions.
- After the panel issued its opinion (July 22, 2013) and a subsequent ruling on contract language (Sept. 12, 2013), American and APA implemented Supplement C to the new CBA.
- Plaintiffs allege arbitration denial of due process based on ex parte contacts and a relationship between Arbitrator Goldberg and American witness/negotiator Mark Burdette (emails, MREP membership, mock award), and ex parte communications between Arbitrator Bloch and American counsel.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing and as time-barred; the court granted dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (no standing) and as untimely under the RLA's 10-day rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge interest-arbitration award | Plaintiffs claim RLA §3 (45 U.S.C. §153) or other RLA provisions give individual employees standing to vacate the award | Only AA and APA were parties to the arbitration; individuals represented by union lack standing to challenge awards; remedy is DFR claim | Dismissed for lack of standing — individual employees generally lack standing to challenge interest-arbitration awards where union and employer were the parties |
| Applicability of §3 (First (q)) to interest arbitration | Plaintiffs: §3 extends to aggrieved employees and provides judicial review | Defendants: §3 governs grievance (adjustment) arbitration, not interest arbitration under §7/§9; RLA distinguishes the two with different procedures and limits | Court: §3 does not apply to interest arbitration; plaintiffs’ §3 argument fails |
| Timeliness under RLA §9 (10-day rule) | Plaintiffs concede 10-day rule but seek equitable tolling until June 15, 2016 (Burdette deposition) because they lacked full discovery earlier | Defendants: 10-day limitations period is strict; documents (emails) were produced March 15, 2016, triggering awareness; equitable tolling unavailable or unjustified | Dismissed as untimely — 10-day statute is mandatory for §9 awards; even if tolling were possible, plaintiffs failed to show extraordinary circumstances or diligence |
| Waiver/non-filing of award with district court | Plaintiffs argued statute of limitations did not run because award not filed in district court | Defendants: Protocol Agreement waived filing requirement and made award final upon issuance | Court: Parties waived filing; plaintiffs conceded waiver; argument rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Katir v. Columbia Univ., 15 F.3d 23 (2d Cir.) (individual employees generally lack standing to challenge arbitration when union and employer are the only parties)
- Mitchell v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc., 481 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.) (federal labor policy places group interests above individual challenges; individuals lack standing when union pursues group grievance)
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng'rs, 768 F.2d 914 (7th Cir.) (discusses standard of review but concerns grievance boards; distinguishable from interest arbitration)
- Catalano v. Brotherhood of Ry., Airline & S.S. Clerks, 348 F. Supp. 369 (S.D.N.Y.) (RLA §9 10-day limitations for vacatur of interest awards is strict; finality and speed emphasized)
- McQuestion v. New Jersey Rail Operations, 892 F.2d 352 (3d Cir.) (distinguishable — involved grievance proceedings addressing uniquely individual claims and thus did not support standing in interest-arbitration context)