Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen
789 F.3d 681
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway (Railroad) and Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen (BLET) dispute whether the Railroad may use supervisors/management in place of union conductors while Section 6 bargaining on the crew-consist rule is pending.
- Trainmen Agreement Scope Rule requires that "all assignments ... shall consist of not less than one (1) conductor," with a narrow exception not applicable here. Railroad served Section 6 notices seeking to eliminate that rule and bargaining/mediation followed without agreement.
- The Railroad on multiple occasions (2010–2013) ran trains with management personnel as engineers/conductors when it asserted no rested union employees were available; BLET protested and treated such acts as major violations.
- BLET struck in September 2013 after learning of alleged substitutions; the Railroad sued for injunctive relief and the district court preliminarily enjoined the strike, finding the dispute minor and conditioning relief on the Railroad not using supervisors.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed whether the dispute is major (requiring exhaustion of Section 6 procedures and maintenance of the status quo) or minor (arising under an existing agreement and subject to arbitration), and whether the Railroad’s unilateral actions violated the RLA status quo.
Issues
| Issue | Railroad's Argument | BLET's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dispute is major or minor under the RLA | Trainmen Agreement is silent on using management when union employees unavailable; management discretion and past practice make Railroad's position "arguably justified," so dispute is minor | Crew-consist rule unambiguously requires a union conductor on every train; silence does not permit unilateral change — dispute is major | Major. Railroad's claim is frivolous/insubstantial given the express "shall" language; dispute is major |
| Whether the Railroad violated RLA status quo by using supervisors as conductors during bargaining | Actions were permitted by management prerogative and engineer agreement provisions; any remedy lies in arbitration/time claims | Replacing union conductors during Section 6 negotiations altered working conditions and violated status quo | Status quo violated. Railroad prematurely resorted to self-help and could not unilaterally implement change |
| Appropriateness of district court preliminary injunction enjoining the strike and permitting Railroad to use supervisors | District court found dispute minor and enjoined strike; allowed limited Railroad use of supervisors | BLET sought vacatur of injunction as wrongly characterizing dispute as minor and rewarding status quo breach | District court’s characterization reversed; injunction provision granting Railroad relief on supervisor issue vacated |
| Proper forum/procedure for resolving dispute | Minor dispute -> Board/arbitration jurisdiction; courts should defer if employer’s claim is arguably justified | Major dispute -> parties must exhaust Section 6/NMB procedures; courts can enjoin unilateral changes to status quo | Major dispute procedures control; parties must follow Section 6/NMB process before changing working conditions |
Key Cases Cited
- Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711 (establishes distinction between major and minor disputes under the RLA)
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299 (articulates test: employer’s claim makes dispute minor only if it is "arguably justified" by the CBA)
- Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R.R. Co. v. United Transportation Union, 396 U.S. 142 (status quo under Section 6 protects actual working conditions and bars unilateral changes during major-dispute process)