United Transportation Union v. Bnsf Railway Company
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4988
9th Cir.2013Background
- Railway discharged Kite after a positive breath test and internal review; dispute became a minor dispute under the RLA and was referred to a Public Law Board (PLB 7204) with neutral Jacalyn Zimmerman; Zimmerman circulated a tentative draft award reinstating Kite, but Boldra allegedly threatened Zimmerman during an executive session to reverse the outcome; Zimmerman recused herself and the case was dismissed without prejudice, later reassigned to PLB 7254 with a new neutral; Peterson Award in favor of the Railway followed, and Union filed a Petition for Review alleging corruption/fraud in the Zimmerman proceedings and the subsequent re-listing; district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, prompting appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction under § 153(q) First to review the Zimmerman Order and related actions | Union argued § 153(q) First permits review of the Zimmerman Order and failure to decide the grievance | Railway contends only final awards are reviewable | District court has jurisdiction to review the Zimmerman Order and related failure to decide; remand allowed for corruption claims |
| Whether the Union sufficiently alleged corruption under § 153(q) First | Union alleged Boldra’s threat constitutes corruption/extortion affecting arbitral integrity | Railway argues statements were not corruption or fraud and meritless | Plaintiff stated a plausible corruption claim for Zimmerman Order and Peterson Award; remand warranted for clear and convincing proof |
| What constitutes corruption under the RLA and the remedy if proven | Corruption includes threats of economic retaliation that undermine arbitral integrity | Remedy and scope uncertain; cure may involve remand or new proceedings | Three categories of corruption recognized; remedy to be determined on remand; Peterson Award taint could be set aside |
| Whether the Peterson Award can be tainted by corruption and set aside | Peterson Award derived from corrupt proceedings | Peterson acted independently; corruption need not affect finality | Peterson Award potentially tainted; remand proper to determine remedy with corruption proven |
| Remedy scope on remand under § 153(q) First | District court should reinstate Zimmerman Draft Award if untainted | Remedy depends on findings; not for summary resolution | Remand to determine appropriate remedy, including possible new untainted hearing or reinstatement |
Key Cases Cited
- Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369 (U.S. 1969) (heart of the Railway Labor Act; finality and framework for minor disputes)
- Price, 360 U.S. 601 (U.S. 1959) (judicial review of NRAB proceedings; limits and equity between labor and management)
- Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 415 F.2d 403 (5th Cir. 1969) (finality of arbitral decisions; early review challenges)
- Moore v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 312 U.S. 630 (U.S. 1941) (historical context for employee access to judicial review vs NRAB)
- Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 406 U.S. 320 (U.S. 1972) (overruled Moore; equal opportunity for judicial review)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Sheehan, 439 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1978) (limited scope of judicial review of NRAB decisions; finality concerns)
- Pacific & Arctic Railway, 952 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1991) (defining corruption vs fraud under RLA; heightened standard to protect finality)
- Dogherra v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 679 F.2d 1293 (9th Cir. 1982) (corruption threshold; requires clear and convincing evidence)
- Boise Cascade Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., 942 F.2d 1427 (9th Cir. 1991) (statutory interpretation; interpret statute as a whole)