837 F.3d 979
9th Cir.2016Background
- Aviation Safeguards (employer) voluntarily recognized United Service Workers West (Union) and entered successive collective bargaining agreements covering LAX employees; health benefit contributions rose annually.
- In 2011 Aviation Safeguards orchestrated an employer-drafted "Union Removal Petition," held anti-union meetings (some mandatory, during work hours), retained a union-avoidance consultant, targeted new hires for signatures, and announced it would no longer recognize the Union as of Dec. 30, 2011.
- The Union submitted a Pro-Union Petition and applied to the National Mediation Board (NMB) for mediation on Jan. 3, 2012; the NMB conducted a pre-docketing investigation for nearly six months and docketed on June 26, 2012; Aviation Safeguards declined mediation two days later.
- The Union filed suit July 31, 2012 under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) alleging: unlawful interference and coercion (45 U.S.C. § 152, Third and Fourth), failure to mediate (§ 152, First), and status-quo violations (§§ 152 Seventh; 155; 156).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Aviation Safeguards, holding certain RLA claims time-barred and that some claims were representation disputes within the NMB’s exclusive jurisdiction.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed in part: it found equitable tolling appropriate for the interference/coercion claim, held the court had jurisdiction over the status-quo claim (as a major dispute), and found Aviation Safeguards violated multiple RLA provisions; remanded for entry of summary judgment for the Union on several claims and for determination of damages/relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Union’s § 152 Third/Fourth (interference/coercion) claim is time-barred | Herrera: statute of limitations tolled while Union pursued NMB mediation; defendant had notice and Union reasonably relied on RLA remedies | Aviation Safeguards: six-month RLA limitations period bars claim | Court: equitable tolling applies; claim not time-barred; directed district court to enter summary judgment for Union on this claim |
| Whether Aviation Safeguards interfered/coerced employees (merits of § 152 Third/Fourth) | Herrera: employer solicited removal signatures, hid meeting purposes, used coercive tactics, targeted hires; conduct unlawfully interfered with representation | Aviation Safeguards: asserted it lawfully withdrew recognition after majority sought removal | Court: employer’s conduct unlawfully interfered and coerced employees; violation of § 152 Third and Fourth; remand for damages/relief |
| Whether the Union’s status-quo claim ( §§ 152 Seventh; 155; 156) is a representation dispute outside federal court jurisdiction | Herrera: employer’s unilateral changes and interference created a major dispute (status-quo violation) within court jurisdiction | Aviation Safeguards: characterized the matter as a representation dispute (NMB exclusivity) | Court: dispute is a major dispute (status-quo violation), not a representation dispute; district court has jurisdiction; remanded to determine timeliness and, if timely, to enter judgment for Union |
| Whether Aviation Safeguards violated § 152 First by refusing to mediate | Herrera: employer’s refusal to mediate and surface bargaining breached duty to exert every reasonable effort to settle | Aviation Safeguards: (did not substantially contest duty in district court on timeliness grounds) | Court: flat refusal to mediate violates § 152 First; directed district court to grant summary judgment for Union and determine relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnett v. New York Central R.R. Co., 380 U.S. 424 (1965) (equitable tolling may be applied to statutes of limitations in labor-act contexts to effectuate congressional intent)
- Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R.R. Co. v. United Transportation Union, 396 U.S. 142 (1969) (RLA status-quo provisions and the duty to preserve existing working conditions during major disputes)
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299 (1989) (RLA’s remedial scheme aims to avoid interruptions of commerce; mediation mechanisms are central)
- International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Aloha Airlines, Inc., 790 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1986) (recognition of six-month limitations for RLA claims and discussion of tolling’s limited application)
- L’Eggs Products, Inc. v. NLRB, 619 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir. 1980) (employer may inform employees of right to revoke but active solicitation in a coercive atmosphere is unlawful)
- Barthelemy v. Air Lines Pilots Ass’n, 897 F.2d 999 (9th Cir. 1990) (NLRA precedents provide apt analogies for interpreting RLA §§ concerning unlawful interference)
- Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. National Mediation Board, 956 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir. 1992) (employer actions discharging or soliciting employees to repudiate a union can constitute unlawful interference)