Utah Transit Authority v. Local 382 of the Amalgamated Transit Union
2012 UT 75
| Utah | 2012Background
- UTA and Local 882 bargained toward a new CBA as 2009 expiry approached; negotiations stalled and impasse declared; UTA unilaterally modified terms.
- An arrangement under 49 U.S.C. § 5833(b) provided for fact-finding then arbitration if no agreement after sixty days; terms remained in place pending findings.
- Parties arbitrated whether the 13(c) arrangement barred unilateral changes; district court denied some relief and later entered amended ruling.
- Arbitrator later ruled in December 2010 that UTA could not modify terms until fact-finding procedures were completed, reinstating 2009 terms.
- In April 2011 negotiations produced a new CBA; by oral argument the new agreement was in effect; the Union appealed the denial of arbitration.
- UTA moved to dismiss as moot in July 2011; Utah Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the case as moot, declining to resolve merits or issue advisory opinions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot and justiciable? | Union argues core issues remain capable of affecting rights and deserve review. | UTA contends ongoing negotiations produced a new CBA, rendering relief impossible and case moot. | Case dismissed as moot; no live controversy. |
| Does the public interest exception apply to mootness here? | Union contends an exception exists due to public importance of bargaining process. | UTA asserts the exception requires three conjunctive elements and is not satisfied. | Exception not satisfied; mootness stands. |
| If moot, can Utah courts issue advisory opinions or address the merits? | Union seeks guidance on future bargaining obligations and process. | UTA emphasizes prohibition on advisory opinions and strict mootness limits. | Utah courts lack power to issue advisory opinions; no merits review. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of L.O., 2012 UT 23 (Utah Supreme Court (2012)) (public interest mootness exception requires recurrence and evasion of review)
- McBride v. Utah State Bar, 2010 UT 60 (Utah Supreme Court (2010)) (three-element public interest mootness test; recurrence and review preservation)
- Ellis v. Swensen, 2000 UT 101 (Utah Supreme Court (2000)) (articulates mootness and exceptions framework)
- Wickham v. Fisher, 629 P.2d 896 (Utah 1981) (recognizes public-interest considerations in mootness doctrine)
- Baird v. State, 574 P.2d 713 (Utah 1978) (judicial power limits and dismissal for lack of justiciable controversy)
- Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Grp., Inc., 438 U.S. 59 (U.S. Supreme Court (1978)) (advocacy against advisory opinions; mootness framework caution)
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (U.S. Supreme Court (1937)) (defines justiciable controversy and contrast with advisory opinions)