United Transportation Union, Pennsylvania State Legislative Board v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 146
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- PUC issued 1975 order requiring two skatemen to apply portable skates to prevent run outs at Conway Yard.
- Norfolk Southern argues the 1975 Order is outdated due to hydraulic skates and safer modern methods.
- Union claims the 1975 Order remains necessary to prevent run outs; PUC granted summary judgment preemption in NS favor.
- Norfolk Southern installed hydraulic skates (2010–2011) reducing need for portable skates; unions contested ongoing need for skatemen.
- Federal preemption under FRSA and FRA regulations is the central issue; FRA regulations govern unmanned equipment and securement in hump yards.
- Court conducts a preemption analysis: express preemption, field preemption (covering same subject), and savings clause; finds FRSA/FRA preempt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FRSA expressly preempt the 1975 Order? | Union argues no express preemption; FRSA prioritizes safety over uniformity. | NS argues FRSA/FRA express preemption applies to unmanned equipment and run-out prevention. | Yes, FRSA preempts the 1975 Order. |
| Do FRA regulations cover the same subject matter as the 1975 Order? | Union contends FRA rules do not comprehensively cover the Yard's methods. | NS argues FRA regulation on unattended equipment and Technical Bulletin govern run outs and securement. | Yes, FRA regulations cover the same subject matter. |
| Does the savings clause save the 1975 Order from preemption? | Union asserts local safety hazard justifies keeping the order under savings clause. | NS argues no essential local hazard; federal standards suffice nationwide. | No; three-pronged savings clause not satisfied. |
| Are there additional PUC regulation issues (walkways/clearances) preserved for state action? | Union seeks relief on walkway/clearance violations. | These issues are separate from the preemption question and not properly before the court. | Waived/not properly before the court; not resolved here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Easterwood v. CSX Transp., Inc., 507 U.S. 658 (1993) (related-to and preemption framework for FRSA)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (broad interpretation of 'related to' in preemption)
- Shanklin v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 529 U.S. 344 (2000) (FRSA preemption and uniform standards emphasis)
- Zimmerman v. Norfolk Southern Corp., 706 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2013) (FRSA preemption continuing primary goal of uniformity)
- Krentz v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 910 A.2d 20 (Pa. 2006) (state preemption framework under FRSA discussed)
- Burlington Northern R.R. Co. v. Montana, 880 F.2d 1104 (9th Cir. 1989) (preemption in railroad safety context)