Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n

LAKE ERIE PITTSBURGH & RAILROAD CO. v. RAIL- WAY EXECUTIVES’ LABOR ASSOCIATION CERTIORARI THE UNITED STATES COURT TO OF APPEALS FOR

THE THIRD CIRCUIT Argued No. 87-1589. March 1989 Decided June 1989* 87-1888, *Together Pittsburgh Lake Erie Railroad No. & Co. al., Railway certiorari to the Labor Executives’ Association et also on same court. Wyatt, argued petitioner. L. Jr.,

Richard the cause for With him Johnson, on the briefs were Ronald M. L. Charles Warren, Within, Eric D. and G. Edward Ytircon.

Jeffrey argued P. Minear cause the United States urging as amicus curiae affirmance in both cases. With him Deputy on the were General Fried brief Solicitor and Solici- tor General Merrill. argued respondents. Clarke, Jr.,

John O’B. the cause for respondent Railway With him on the brief for Labor Execu Mahoney. tives’ William Association was G. Robert S. McCarthy, Burk, F. Henri and Rush, Jr., John J. filed respondent brief for the Interstate Commerce Commission, 87-1888.† in No.

† Briefs urging of amici curiae reversal in both cases were filed for the by Tigges; State of South Dakota Richard A. Allen Julie A. and and for Railway by Conway, Ralph National Labor Richard T. Conference J. 494 opinion the Court. delivered

Justice White federal statutes the interaction three These cases involve respect proposed rail line of the Pitts- sale of the to the (P&LE). burgh are The statutes Railroad Co. and Lake Erie (RLA), Railway 45 amended, 44 as 577, Act Stat. Labor (ICA), § seq.; Act the Interstate Commerce U. S. C. 151et (1982 V); §10101 Supp. seq. and the ed. et and U. S. C. (NLGA), 29 U. S. C. Act Stat. Norris-LaGuardia seq. et

I op- owning rail carrier and Petitioner, P&LE, is a small serving points erating and west- line Ohio 182miles of rail trackage rights Pennsylvania possessing over other ern and experienced extending fi- P&LE has into New York. lines severity, having increasing problems mil- lost $60 nancial years preceding during of these cases. the onset lion the five notably improve failed, its condition After other efforts employees, concessions from its reductions, work force recoup expansion, that in order to for market P&LE decided any part their investments it must sell its as- its owners agreed July assets for 1987, P&LE to sell its sets.1 On Moore, Jr., Eugenia Langan, David P. Briefs of amici cu- D. Lee. in No. 87-1888 were filed for the Airline Industrial urging riae reversal Reinert, Jr.; by Harry A. Thomas E. Conference Rissetto and Relations Moore, Transportation by Ral-ph J. Chicago & North Western Co. et al. Jr., Gassner, Daley, and Robert Eugenia Langan, D. P. F. James Stuart Inc., Corber; Industries, by Ralph al. Transportation et and for Guilford J. Jr., Moore, Eugenia Langan. D. J. filed a brief for the American Fed- David and Laurence Gold Silberman amicus cu- Congress Organizations of Industrial eration of Labor and urging riae affirmance in No. 87-1589. Regional of America et al.

Mark M. Levin filed a brief for the Railroads cases. as amici curiae both property unavailing were major rail lines in the Attempts to interest have been manda protection that would high cost of labor because existing an applicable purchases tory the section of the ICA under V), (1982ed., in n. Supp. which is set forth carrier. 49 U. S. C. infra.

approximately newly subsidiary, million to a $70 formed (Railco), Chicago Rail Inc. Co., P&LE West Pullman (CWP).2 Transportation Corporation op- Railco intended to except erate the railroad as P&LE had that Railco would not collective-bargaining assume P&LE’s contracts with its vari- only employees ous unions and would need about 250 rather working than the 750 then for P&LE.3 When the unions representing employees pro- P&LE’s were notified of the posed they sale, asserted that the sale would have an effect working employees on the conditions of the carrier’s subject requirements therefore was of the RLA, 45 §§ provide: U. S. C. Seventh and which “§ Change pay, 152 . . . Seventh. in rules, or work- ing contrary agreement conditions or to section 156 forbidden agents change carrier,

“No its officers, or shall pay, working employ- rates of rules, or conditions of its agreements except ees, class, as a as embodied in in the prescribed agreements manner in such or in section 156 of this title.”

Ҥ changing pay, 156. Procedure rates of rules, and working conditions representatives employees

“Carriers of the shall give thirty days’ at least written an notice of intended change agreements affecting pay, rules, rates of working place begin- conditions, and the time and for the ning representatives of conference between the parties changes interested such intended shall be agreed upon days receipt within ten after the of said no- thirty days pro- tice, and said time shall be within the every In vided the notice. case where such notice change given, of intended has been or conferences are 6,000 keep P&LE certain real would estate and some railcars. anticipated inviting employees applications all P&LE 3 CWP to submit give preference in hiring. expected and intended to to them CWP also bargain existing for new contracts with the unions.

496

being the of the thereto, or services held reference by party, requested or have been either Mediation Board pay, proffered rules, its of services, rates said Board has by working not the carrier shall be altered or conditions controversy finally upon, been as re- the has acted until by by quired title, of this the Mediation section 155 days elapsed period ten has after ter- of Board, unless proffer request without for or mination of conferences the Mediation Board.”4 the services of ready they negotiate all to unions stood The advised including aspects the decision to sell rail- matter, of the the willing responded it was to discuss road assets. P&LE § bargaining were re- the 156 notice and matter but that jurisdiction quired subject to the transaction was since the (ICC Commission) the Commission or Interstate Commerce 4 rules, pay, working Disputes change or proposals about to rates major disputes. disputes are those involv conditions are Minor known application The are ing interpretation existing contracts. latter the or proce subject subject The former are to compulsory to arbitration. specify §§ of the Mediation out in which the functions dures set 156 Co., 369, 378 In Terminal 394 U. S. Board. Trainmen Jacksonville (1969), applicable major disputes: procedures to we described the voluntary provides framework facilitate the set- “The Act a detailed to rates, change of major party desiring to effect a disputes. tlement of A rules, § pay, give must written notice. 6. working or conditions advance Second, § confer, to resolve the parties must if conference fails dispute, may Mediation invoke the services of National either both Board, sponte if it finds a may proffer its sua labor which also services fails, § 5 If the Board must en- emergency to First. mediation exist. controversy binding arbitra- parties submit deavor to induce the however, First, §§ tion, only 7. place, if both consent. which can take ‘substantially to dispute inter- rejected If is and the threatens arbitration deprive any rupt degree to a such as to section of interstate commerce service, Board transportation the Mediation shall country of essential President,’ emergency investigate an notify who create board working way dispute While report dispute. on 10. is may unilaterally quo. the status party neither alter through stages, these Seventh, First, §§2 10.” §§ requirements of the ICA and since the

under and 156 regime upon management’s intrude on that as well as would company prerogatives to conduct affairs of the with re- spect to the sales transaction. responded filing

Most of then the unions themselves existing proposing changes agreements 156 notices proposed impacts upon ameliorate the adverse sale guarantees employees. sought P&LE’s The unions that the any employee deprived employ- sale would not cause to be of placed any position respect ment or in to be worse with to pay working require or conditions and that P&LE would purchaser of its rail line assume P&LE’s collective- bargaining agreements.5 again bargain, P&LE declined to asserting juris- that the transaction was within exclusive respondent, August Railway diction ICC. On 19, (RLEA), Labor Executives’ on Association behalf of P&LE’s unions, filed suit in the United District States Court for Pennsylvania, seeking declaratory the Western of District a judgment respect obligations with to P&LE’s under the RLA proposals essentially The unions’ were these: employee Company actively “1. No P&LE who [was Railroad em- 1, August ployed or on authorized leave of between 1986and Au- absencel 1,1987 placed deprived employment posi- . . . or in a gust shall be worse respect compensation working any tion with to or conditions for reason retirement, except resignation, justifiable for . death or dismissal cause. . . allowances, separation protective option, The formulae for the with a shall comparable Dock be to those established the Neiv York conditions. respect If employee placed position compensa- “2. an in a to is worse receive, conditions, working employee tion shall addition to a make-whole-remedy, penalty pay equal pay, fringe to times the lost three employee. consequential damages by suffered benefits such any purchaser agrees binding “3. P&LE to from of its obtain commitments all operating properties [of rail line and assets to collec- P&LE’s] assume bargaining agreements employees seniority ... to tive hire P&LE order physicals, negotiate Organization and this without and to with the P&LE agreement apply Agreement an to the sale transaction and to select this 38, being acquired.” perform App. forces work over the lines 46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 126. against pending completion injunction RLA an the sale September bargaining obligations. 15, 1987, the unions On request restraining order went strike. a on P&LE’s against the strike District Court on was denied ground such an that the forbade order.6 NLGA proposed could not carried out with- assets be sale of compliance C. ICA, out terms of the 49 U. S. with the requires seeking acquire 10901,which that noncarriers public ne- rail first convenience and line obtain a certificate 10901(e) proce- cessity specifies the from the Section ICC. “may” purpose provides that the re- dures for this ICC provide equitable quire acquiring company “to a fair and arrangement employees protection of who for the railroad protective thereby no less of and beneficial be affected pursu- employees than of such those established the interests 10505,however, ant to section 11347of this title.”7 Section NLGA, part: provides in 29 U. S. Section of the as set forth C. subject “§ or specific restraining Enumeration acts not to orders 104. of injunctions any jurisdiction have re-

“No court of the shall to issue United States permanent injunction any involving in straining temporary order or or case par- any dispute prohibit any person persons growing out of labor to or or defined) (as ticipating dispute interested in these are herein or such terms concert, any following doing, singly whether or in of the acts: from “(a) any Ceasing perform any or work in rela- refusing to or to remain employment. . . .” tion Act, 108, § of that in 29 U. S. C. is also relevant here: Section 8 as set forth Noncompliance disputes “§ or fail- obligations involved in labor 108. with by negotiation preventing injunctive as relief ure to settle or arbitration any com- restraining injunctive granted order relief shall be to “No or any by comply obligation imposed failed with law which plainant who has to every or to make dispute question, in the labor who has failed is involved by with the dispute negotiation to either or reasonable effort settle such machinery voluntary any governmental of mediation or available aid arbitration.” 7 V) (1982 ed., Supp. protective requires 49 C. labor Title U. S. 11347 a rail involved certain transactions such provisions when carrier is mergers or consolidations: grant exemptions the

authorizes Commission to from the re- quirements necessary carry Act of the when not the out transportation policy.8 experience national Based on acquisitions 10901, under the had ICC issued what is Exemption, known as the Ex Parte No. 392 Class Ex see (Sub. 1), Exemption Acqui- No. Parte No. 392 Class the Operation sition and Rail Lines Under U. S. C. 4-9 Ҥ Employee protective arrangements 11347. involving transactions rail carriers a rail

“When carrier is involved in a approval transaction for which is sought under title, sections and 11345 section In- 11346 this the require terstate Commerce provide Commission shall the carrier to a fair arrangement protective employees least as of the interests of who are by imposed affected the transaction as the terms this under section before February the terms established under section 405 of the Rail (45 565). Passenger subtitle, Service Act U. Notwithstanding S. C. this arrangement by repre- be made rail carrier authorized employees. sentative of its arrangement approving and the order require transaction must employees of the affected rail will carrier position not be in a employment worse related their as a result years during following transaction the effective date of the final ac- (or tion of the if an employee employed Commission was for a period lesser effective, of time the carrier before the became action for that lesser period).” provides part: Section

“§ Authority exempt transportation 10505. rail carrier “(a) transportation subject In a matter to a providing related rail carrier jurisdiction to the of the Interstate Commerce Commission under this subchapter, exempt person, persons, Commission shall class of or a transaction or service when the application Commission finds that the of a provision of this subtitle— “(1) necessary carry transportation policy, is out of section title; 10101a of this “(2) (A) (B) either the transaction scope, or service is of limited

application provision protect shippers of a of this subtitle is not needed to power. from the abuse of market “(g) authority The Commission not exercise its under this section (2) protect ... to relieve a carrier of its obligation to em- interests of

ployees required by this subtitle.” (Ex 392), Parte (1985) sub 1 I. C. C. 2d 810 review denied nom. Illinois Commerce Comm’n ICC, U. S. App. D. C. (1987)/' 817 F. 2d 145 which provides abbreviated procedures for for seeking approval acquisitions by non- carriers such as Railco of an railroad or its operating assets. 1150.32(b) see 49 regulatory (1987),9 CFR in procedure, volved the anof which filing application exemption would become effective after days seven absent no filing contrary tice from the An Commission.10 interested could party op provides

9 The brief in this Court background: Commission’s this “In years just partial deregulation industry after the of the railroad by passage Staggers occasioned Rail Act of Pub. L. 96-448, 194-45, No. regional Stat. numerous new short lines and rail created, pursuant lines were through to 49 U. S. C. the sale of mar- ginally profitable unprofitable rail eager pro- lines to new entities vide sales, rail service. In considering approving these the Commis- sion expense imposed became convinced that the on such sales imposition protective of labor hampering development conditions was and, indeed, of short line railroads forcing selling was carriers to aban- marginal don these pursuant lines to 49 U. S. C. of the ICA. “In order to development foster the preserve of short line railroads to facilities, rail employment service and that would otherwise be lost through abandonments, began withholding protec- the Commission labor tions individual considering years many sales. After over five such applications, the Commission determined that the formation of new rail carriers should encouraged. formations, be In order to aid rail the Com- mission promulgated procedures in Ex Parte In No. 392. Ex Parte 392 the exempted Commission rail line sales to new carriers from full com- pliance with procedures Commission retaining authority, while under its power, revocation any problem to review the transaction and correct aris- ing out of the transaction.” Brief for Interstate Commerce Commission (footnote omitted). 3-4 and citations

In the Ex proceedings, Parte 392 the RLEA demanded that the Com- impose mission labor in all conditions 10901sale transactions. The Com- mission, however, protective provisions imposed ruled that labor would be only upon showing individual cases exceptional circumstances. 2d, I. C. C. at 815. procedure 10 TheICC modified the Ex Parte 392 in 1988 to extend the (1988). waiting period days. from 7 to 35 Reg. See 53 Fed. 5981-5982

501 exemption by filing petition any pose time, to revoke at exemp consideration of which ICC could revoke the after part impose protective provisions. labor in whole or tion only exceptional indicated, however, had The ICC protective provisions imposed. such situations would be September Accordingly, Railco on a notice of 1987,filed exemption pursuant denying to Ex Parte 392. After various by reject exemption requests the unions to the notice of stay exemption sale, the Commission allowed the to be- September petition A effective on 26. to revoke filed come by pending RLEA on October is still before Commis- imposition pro- request time RLEA of labor sion. At no did authority provisions pursuant to the tective Commission’s §10901.11 under reapplied 5, 1987, P&LE to the District Court

On October restraining for an order the strike. The District Court granted request ruling on October that the authoriza- by any negated duty the sale had tion of the ICC that P&LE bargain employees, over the effects of the sale on its injunction under that the NLGA did not forbid issuance of an however, circumstances.12 the Court of such On October summarily holding Appeals reversed, that the ICA did not require restrictions on the accommodation NLGA’s (CA3 1987). powers. A 831 F. 2d 1231 re- District Court’s to determine whether the sale or strike vi- mand was ordered RLA. The unions did not resume their strike olated the Appeals the District in- the Court of reversed Court’s when attempted junction, if to con- but threatened to do so P&LE the sale to Railco.13 summate 7, supra. n. See remain in effect until the District Court ruled on the The order was to by that was re

preliminary injunction sought P&LE. It was this order Appeals. the Court of viewed Appeals effectively termi and the decisions of the Court of The strike buyer proposed Railco. Efforts to find another were un nated the sale to successful, selling its assets and the but since P&LE is still interested District then went case Court forward. Ad- dressing request injunction, an the unions’ the District although duty Court did held that P&LE not have a bar- to gain required by sell, P&LE over its decision to was the RLA bargain employees, to of the sale on over the effects and that § provision required bargaining quo the status of 156 that its obligations the RLA must be satisfied the under before sale despite approval by could of be consummated the transaction (WD acting pursuant Supp. the the ICC ICA. 677 F. 1987). Appeals judg- Pa. A of divided Court affirmed the (CA3 1988). ment of District 845 F. 2d 420 the Court. petition granted challenging in 87-1888, We P&LE’s No. Appeals’ injunction against the Court of affirmance of the the by petition sale Court, issued the District as well as P&LE’s asking judgment 87-1589, No. for reversal of the Appeals setting injunction Court of aside strike issued (1988). the District Court. 488 U. S. 965 II properly In the issue is 87-1888, RLA, No. whether required injunction against or authorized an clos- construed, ing the sale P&LE’s assets to Railco because of an unsat- duty bargain isfied about the effects of the sale on P&LE’s employees. required first address whether the RLA We give bargain P&LE to notice of its decision to sell and to about the effects of the sale. We then consider whether the quo provision jus- unions’ own notices and the status of 156 injunction. tified the cases, efforts, bearing have a as the

issues these cases on those Appeals recognized parties agree, and the ai'e not moot. Court of Also, September, exchanges had informal in late P&LE and its unions 14, the unions invoked about the effects of the sale. On October one of April Ap- services of the Mediation Board. After the Court (CA3), decision, bargaining proceeded, and peals 845 F. 2d 420 effects indicate, parties have not resolved their differences. these cases

A P&LE submits neither its decision to sell the im- nor pact company might employ- that sale of the have had on its agreements “change affecting pay, ees was a rates of rules, added) working (emphasis meaning or conditions” within the RLA, S. C. U. P&LE therefore had duty give bargain respect no notice or to these Appeals rejected matters. The submission, Court this fo- cusing employees on the effects sale would have on concluding jobs by possibly that the “loss of two-thirds of the employees require clearly ‘change agreements would af- fecting pay, working rates of rules, conditions.’” 845 F. point proposed 2d, at 428. The court did not how out require changing any specific provision any sale would of of collective-bargaining agreements. sug- P&LE’s It did not gest any agreements possibility that of those dealt with the company, sought any rights the sale of the to confer on employees guaranteed P&LE’s event the sale, or jobs indefinitely.14 that would continue to be available What proposed P&LE do it to would remove from the railroad busi- position employer; ness and terminate its aas railroad Appeals, explain like Court RLEA does not how such require changing any provisions action would violate or of the of the unions’ written contracts with P&LE. working parties may course,

Of not all conditions to which agreed have are be found written contracts. Detroit Transportation & Shore Line Toledo R. Co. v. Union, (Shore (1969) Line). 142, U. S. 154-155 It be 14Indeed, Appeals agreements the Court of stated that with “P&LE’s its unions, however, appear contemplate not type do this of transaction e., lines], [i. permit prohibit sale the rail thus expressly neither nor 2d, the sale.” 845 F. granted n. 9. RLEA asserts P&LE had job security guarantees employees, Respondent to some of its see Brief for RLEA but the record collective-bargaining does contain the con tracts, if they there guarantees, were such there is no claim that would sale rail survive the of the line. relationship principals,

“in the context of between the implying taken ing is whole, as a there a basis for an understand- practice particular (Harlan, on the Id., involved.” at 160 dissenting). Appeals purport J., But the Court of did not implied agreement go to find an that P&LE would not out of pro- business, assets, would not sell its or if it did, would employees consequences tect its from the adverse of such ac- tion. Neither does RLEA. We therefore see no basis for holding § given pro- that P&LE should have a 156notice aof posed “change” express implied agreements in its the unions it contracted to sell its assets to Railco. when obligated Nor was it, based on its own sell, decision to bargain impending delay implemen- about the sale or to arguments contrary quite tation. We find RLEA’s to the unconvincing.

B Appeals’ There holding, is more substance to the Court of and to pro- RLEA’s submission, that the unions’ 156notices posed far-reaching changes existing agreements in the over required bargain which quo P&LE was and that the status provision prohibited going of 156 P&LE from forward with pending completion “purposely long the sale and drawn procedures requires out” which the Act to be followed in “major” dispute. Railway order to settle a Flor- Clerks v. (1966). ida East R. Co., Coast U. S. Section provides change agreements that when a notice of has given, pay, working been “rates of rules, conditions shall by controversy not be altered the carrier until the has been finally upon, required by Relying acted as section 155.” on argues, Appeals Shore Line, RLEA and the Court of held, § change when a rail labor union files a 156notice to the agreement, “working terms of an the conditions” that the may change pending bargaining carrier conclusion of the process express are not limited to those contained or im- plied agreements include, but Line held, Shore “those ac- objective working broadly practices, tual, conditions and con- prior pending ceived, which were effect to the time the dispute arose and which are involved in or related to that dis- pute.” 396 at 153. RLE A S.,U. submits that the relation- ship employer-employee being employed of and the state of among working changed are those conditions not be procedures until the RLA are satisfied. We are uncon- vinced, reasons, for several that this is the case. briefly Line,

The facts of Shore these: stated, were Shore operated Lang Line of rail 50 miles line between Yard Michigan. in Toledo, Ohio, Detroit, and Dearoad Yard near many years, engine reported duty For all train and crews day Lang necessary and finished the it Yard. When was perform switching operations points, and other at other transported expense outlying crews were at railroad to those points. company proposed outlying to establish work assignments Michigan, at Trenton, some 35 miles north of Lang assigned report Yard. Crews there would have to proposed change by, there. The was not forbidden parties’ collective-bargaining would not violated, have agreement. seeking The union filed a 156notice to amend agreement outlying assign- to forbid railroad to make by parties ments. The issue was not settled and the pro- union called for mediation. While the Mediation Board ceedings pending, posted were the railroad a bulletin creat- ing disputed assignment at Trenton. The union threat- company strike, ened a sued to restrain strike, injunction relying the union counterclaimed for an on the sta- quo provision tus of 156. The District Court and the Court Appeals union, held for the affirmed over a dissent we by by joined Burger. Harlan, Justice Chief Justice We held though any propose change that even Shore Line did not §156 agreements, quo provision the status —“rates pay, working pend- rules, or conditions shall not be altered” ing required procedure any exhaustion of —forbade change “objective working in the Shore Line conditions” existing. S., then 396 U. at 153. We noted that had it been outlying assignments, practice the com- work the to make rights pany make the Trenton to would have been within working practice, objective assignment; prior the but report come back for work and crews condition, was to have changed working Lang not be condition could to That Yard. violating dispute pending status without resolution § nothing though quo provision in the there was 156 even outlying assign- prevent agreement parties to between at 153-154. Id., ments. In cases. view, not control these Line, in our does

Shore pro quo place, that the status that case first our conclusion only working required con to conditions not vision adherence implied agreements express railroad between the tained in or “objectively” in existence to conditions and its union but also that otherwise could served, was when the union’snotice any violating agreement, changed extended the without be language limits, and we should 156 to its outer relevant applying proceed the facts of that decision to with care before thought, Lang reporting Yard, we Second, these cases.15 years, many unquestioned practice and we for had been sufficiently employees to deem it considered it reasonable bargaining changed without it not be established that would provisions quo compliance the RLA. with the status procedures with re bargaining and settlement 156 deals with Section rules, pay, working or agreements affecting rates of spect changes in well as bar changes, intended There must be notice of such conditions. every proffered. And in case involv requested if or gaining and mediation pay, notice, e., changes agreements, rates of rules i. of intended ing such specified until the changed be the carrier working conditions shall not agreements, changes procedures are Because 156 concerns satisfied. require surely open it is to a construction that would arguable it is been working that have never quo respect conditions the status that, if implied, no notice of agreement, expressed or subject of an union, changed by the carrier by the could be changes been served had rejected Line that construc any bargaining whatsoever. Shore without text, Line tion, apply Shore in the we are not inclined but as indicated go out of business. decision of P&LE to fundamentally, more Third, and the decision did not involve a proposal by the railroad to its terminate business. Here, it may working existing prior that be said condition to the § operating through was notice that P&LE was a railroad agency employees, of its but was no reason there to ex pect, simply long from existence, the railroad’s it that would stay especially in business, view its losses, or that rail labor a would have substantial role in the decision to sell or negotiating the terms of sale. Whatever else Line Shore might quit reach, it did not involve the decision of a carrier to business, railroad sell its and assets, cease be a rail employer road all, at a decision we that think should have legal significance been accorded more than it received courts below. Our cases indicate much. Darlington Mfg.

In Textile Workers v. Co., 380 U. S. 263 (1965), employer an mill closed textile when a union won representation election. The National Labor Relations practice Board concluded that this action an unfair was labor 8(a)(1) (3) §§ under of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Appeals disagreed, holding The Court of that the complete partial liquidation employer’s or of an business even though motivated antiunion animus was not an unfair practice. part,16ruling We affirmed that insofar as the employer right NLRA concerned, is an “has an absolute any pleases. terminate his entire business for reason he . . .” § 8(a)(1), 380 U. 268. S., at Whatever be the limits of employer’s said, we an decision to terminate its business is peculiarly management one of those decisions “so matters of prerogative they that would never constitute violations” of ceasing Id., that section. at 269. Neither would business 8(a)(3) 8(a)(5) refusing bargain about it violate even if Id., done antiunion animus. at n. proposition single “A 269-274. that a businessman cannot go represent out choose to of business if he wants to would partial liquidation thought present 16 We that a might a different case S., findings. for further remanded See 380 U. at 276-277. startling it should not be entertained such a innovation legislative or un- intent without manifestation the clearest construing equivocal judicial precedent Rela- so the Labor tions 270. We found neither.17 Id., Act.” (1981), NLRB, Corp. v. S. 666 In 452 U. First National Maintenance Co., which, Darlington Mfg. arose under like Textile Workers NLRA, likely employer’s an “the harm to be done to we concluded freely deciding part to of its busi need to in whether shut down operate that outweighs the incremental benefit purely ness economic reasons making the decision.” might participation be the union’s in gained through Further, employer’s to close S., we held that the decision U. at 686. (d)’s part “is of ‘terms and condi down a its segment of business tions,’ In so bargaining.” has mandated Ibid. Congress . . which . over by in Railroad holding, the Court’s decision we did not feel constrained (1960). Indeed, Co., Telegraphers Chicago N. W. R. 362 U. & S. bargain rejected compelled us to argument Telegraphers we the that find mandatory. pointed we in First National ing Although over this decision RLA and the important the distinctions between the Maintenance to NLRA, why Telegraphers the re other does not dictate there are reasons Telegraphers, that District sult in In the Court held the these cases. jurisdiction grant injunctive against a labor Court to relief was without provisions closely the A divided rea strike the of NLGA. Court under single-agent to stations proposal soned that a railroad’s abandon certain bargainable Darlington a In jobs and hence abolish some was issue. Maintenance, analysis Telegra that First we concluded the National reading the phers, “expansive” of the RLA and which rested on an NLGA, S.,U. govern under the NLRA. 452 did not a decision case, in the context of Telegraphers again n. 23. In examine once this we simply a to eliminate or Telegraphers seeking the In railroad was RLA. here, by stations. The railroad consolidate some of its little-used local contrast, go of There is noth sought to sell all its lines and out business. case, result, us to the in this extreme ing Telegraphers that forces reach first prohibited terminating operations from without that P&LE was Notwithstanding policy considerations bargaining with the unions. RLA, in enlarged mandatory under the prompting scope bargaining of reaffirmed, we are Darlington, First National Maintenance light of which decides Telegraphers to a case which the railroad not inclined to extend business. to retire from railroad 518-520, Teleg- dissent, Line post, at seems to assert that Shore The we a to leave market. But as raphers railroad’s freedom dealt out, involve. We are point precisely that is what those cases did not Although Darlington the NLRA, arose under we con- are guided by vinced that we should in that be admonition entirely that a case the decision to close down is so business management prerogative only amuch an unmistakable expression congressional require intent will suffice to employer postpone pending sale of its assets the fulfill- any duty bargain subject ment of it have to over the litigation. matter of notices such as union were served in this statutory contrary, Absent to the direction of a decision employer go consequently railroad out business and jobs change reduce to zero the number available is not a employment quo the conditions of forbidden the status provision of In 156. these cases, P&LE concluded it agreement must sell its assets, and its im- Railco, sell to if plemented, would have removed fromit the railroad busi- longer employer. longer no ness; would it abe railroad No would it need services of members of the rail unions. collective-bargaining RLEA concedes that had the agreements expressly bargaining concerning waived sale § change agree- P&LE’s the unions’ assets, 156notices to the trump agreements ments could not the terms of the and could delay Respondent the sale. Brief RLEA 44. We agreement think the same result follows the where is silent employer proceeded on the matter and the railroad has in ac- cordance with the ICA. In circumstances, these lit- there is § expect no tle or basis for the unions a to that 156 notice delay company’sdeparture be would effective to the from clearly Congress requires railroad business. that sales proposal satisfy require- transactions like must P&LE’s nothing prevent ICA, ments of but find we the RLA to the immediate consummation of P&LE’s contract to sell. approved by permitting When the the sale ICC the Ex Parte exemption 392 effective, to become P&LE free was to closethe enjoined doing transaction and should not have from been so. plainly respect significance odds with dissent to the of P&LE’s to decision leave the railroad business.

510 obliga- of the RLA also to our responds

This construction two statutory regimes, tion to conflicts between avoid ICA, respects overlap. and some namely, RLA and said, liberty we “are not at to pick As the has Court enactments, and when two stat- choose among congressional courts, it is the co-existence, duty utes are capable the con- absent a intention to congressional clearly expressed Mancari, as effective.” Morton v. 417 to each trary, regard (1974). “to We should read federal statutes 535, U. S. 551 their if we can do so while preserving effect each give to Alaska, Watt v. 259, 267 U. S. sense and purpose.” Fausto, States (1981); see also United U. S. (1988). in this accordingly litigation. We act Clause to authority exercised Commerce

Congress has Act See century. rail for over regulate transportation (the ICA), ch. Stat. to of 1887 regulate commerce to the plenary 379. In has ICC so, Congress assigned doing from line exten- transactions, rail authority ranging over abandonments, sions, consolidations, acquisitions. 10901(a) § in 49 non- In U. S. C. permits the ICA particular, a rail line if the ICC determines only carriers acquire re- public necessity “the or future convenience present rail The ICC acquisition operation. quire permit” on condi- certification satisfaction various may approve it has labor authority impose pro- tions. Specifically, to do so. though obligated tection it is not provisions in its Ex 10901(e). § ICC, Acting pursuant Parte 392 declared all noncarrier proceedings, exemption from 10901 regulation. acquisitions exempt presumptively be days would deemed seven approved Such transactions entities. CFR after a notice filed acquiring 1150.32(b) (1987). cir- showing exceptional § And absent a demonstrate, cumstances, rail labor was entitled which Ex not be The imposed. labor would protection provisions Parte § 10505 au- ICA, exemption and the procedures, last two like amendments to ICA the thority generally, g., Regula- see, decades, e. the Railroad Revitalization and tory 1976, L. 94-210, 31; Reform Act of Pub. 90 Stat. the Staggers 1980, 96-448, Rail Act of Pub. L. 1895, Stat. reversing industry’s through aimed at the rail decline de- regulatory by streamlining procedures all efforts, above economicallyefficient effectuate transactions. agreed

Here P&LE to sell its to Railco. The assets trans presented exemp action was to the and an Ex Parte 392 ICC requested. rejected applica tion The was ICC the unions’ stay reject exemption, tions to which became effective days requested. seven it after was The then unions success fully sought injunction delaying closing an of the transac § Appeals tion based on their 156notices. The Court of sev regimes, eral times noted the tension between the two but provisions concluded that the no RLA left room for a easing construction those tensions. This the case was even though injunction likely that was affirmed would result in Congress’ cancellation of P&LE’s sale and the frustration of through deregulate intent ICA amendments to rail generally specifically air industries and more to assist small problems. disagree rail lines with financial We with that conclusion, said, as we have arewe confident that the reasonably subject RLA is ato that would, construction at degree, injunc least to a harmonize the two statutes.18 The effectively prevented going tion, which the sale from for granted. ward, should not have been argues injunction 18 P&LE impermissible that the RLA anwas collateral ICA, attack approving on the ICC order the sale. But U. S. C. 10901, RLA, § them, and the S. comple U. C. as we construe are Here, mentary regimes. simply granted exemption ICC an from the order, permitted, strictures which but did the consumma tion of the sale. It made no finding prevent that would enforcement of §156. dissent, post, ignore principle asserts we

P&LE, regulated utility, may not enter or leave the market without course, not, agency approval. Of we do for we set out the law that re- sale, quires ICC consent which was obtained.

c cases, which rests on our construction in these holding Our ICA, the force the is of the RLA on pre-emptive and not its 156 notice to serve own obligated that not petitioner was also the sale. We proposed on the unions in connection with not P&LE to conclude that unions’ notices did obligate the the the the sale beyond maintain quo postpone status and was time the sale was Commission approved by however, not hold, scheduled to consummated. We do be in to the all to duty bargain response that P&LE had no The RLEA held, § 156 courts below unions’ motions. was not a sell, such, decision to P&LE’s agrees, is issue whether P&LE bargainable subject. disputed sale would was about the effects that the required to bargain was P&LE, view, have our employees. might upon that it bar- not the unions’ demand entirely disregard free to were about effects. When the unions’ notices gain such served, however, the terms of P&LE’s agreement to sell settled, Railco were or less and P&LE’s decision more un- on those had been made. To the extent terms buy- ions’ demands be only by could satisfied assent sale, ers, or dictate the terms of the they change sought sell At that effect decision to itself. challenged time, P&LE under no about obligation was bargain had that the un- negotiated. terms it To extent already mat- itself, ions’ be satisfied P&LE those proposals could ters were but until the date for only closing bargainable the Ex arrived, course, could not occur until which, sale became We are therefore Parte effective.19 exemption 87-1888. to reverse Court of No. Appeals constrained only in the duty bargain the effects of the sale We address the about existing when notices served. We do of the facts the unions’ were context employer’s duty bargain response to a union’s with a not deal railroad sale, protection in the that a proposing provisions labor event 156 notice place. contemplated, take yet should

III Appeals 87-1589, In No. is the issue whether the Court of setting injunction against was correct in the aside the strike issued on At Ex time, October 1987. the Parte 392 exemption effective, had become the and District Court held that because ICC had effect authorized the sale and delay prejudicial parties had ruled that would be to the and public prohibition issuing against interests, the NLGA in- junctions dispute in labor cases be must accommodated to the go ICC’s decision of forward. It sale assets should significance legal was this on of decision, based the ICA impact Appeals and its on NLGA, that the Court of sum- marily agree reversed. We with that decision. § general

We have held that the NLGA limitation on dis- power injunctions disputes trict courts’ issue labor must specificprovisions be accommodated to the more of the RLA: jurisdiction “[T]he power District Court has and to issue necessary injunctive compliance orders” to enforce with the requirements provisions “notwithstanding of the RLA of the Norris-LaGuardia Act.” Trainmen v. Howard, 343 (1952). may enjoined Thus, S. U. a union be from striking dispute interpretation when the concerns the application subject compul- its of contract and is therefore sory Chicago arbitration. Trainmen v. River & Indiana R. (1957). specific provisions “[T]he Co., 353 U. 30S. of the Railway precedence general Act Labor take over the more provisions Id., Act.” Norris-LaGuardia 41-42. specific provi- The same accommodation the NLGA to the agreed sions of the NLRA be A must made. union that has disputes subject to arbitrate is to a contractual no-strike enjoined striking despite clause from be the NLGA. (1970). Boys Inc. Markets, v. Retail Clerks, U. S. Petitioner contends that the must likewise be NLGA ac- procedures by Congress commodated to the mandated specifically authority 49 U. S. C. 10901 of the ICC impose protective provisions, right labor of rail right provisions ICC, from the and its labor to seek such pro- urged judicial It that the is ICA if dissatisfied. review pro- comprehensive for the resolution of labor scheme vides a ICC-regulated arising transactions tection out issues procedures advantage those take that rail must labor unpersuaded that this is the We are rather than strike. case. way give prohibition when neces- the NLGA must duty specifically imposed

sary another stat- to enforce a provision applicable called to our at- has been ute. But no participate any duty imposes rail unions to on tention that protections proceedings ICC with which to seek ICC pro- protection they Furthermore, labor must be satisfied. acquiring against railroad rather than the visions run P&LE, that the unions seller, is with the seller. Yet here it consequences seeking bargain, to ease the adverse wanted to notices, end, that the unions served of the sale. To bargain obligated which at extent P&LE least to some nothing in the ICA until its transaction was closed. We find duty, anything in that Act that of that nor relieved P&LE empowers relationship that to intrude into the be- the ICC selling are its railroad unions. We tween the carrier and against injunction quite thus that the NLGA forbade an sure contrary du- to the unions’ that strike unless the strike was ties RLA. under the Appeals intimate stated: “We issue,

As to that the Court of Railway provisions Labor of the no view as to whether dispute applicable court so that the district Act are to this dispute enjoin Act’s the strike while that would be entitled to complaint underway. RLEA’s are resolution mechanisms appli- Railway seeking is Labor Act that the a declaration dispute district before the is the merits issue cable to this District Court remand, the 2d, F. at 1237. On court.” 831 dispute applicable to the RLA was indeed held that the against injunction not, It did P&LE. an on that basis issued question the unions’ whether however, ever address enjoin- strike, which after filed, occurred their suit was was Appeals under the RLA. able Neither did the Court of deal affirming in per- with issue the District Court. P&LE functorily in asserts its briefs this Court in- that the strike junction proper obligated was because the unions were bargain than rather strike their after 156 notices were respond served. RLEA did not to this assertion. With position, pursue case this we shall not Instead, the issue. judgment Appeals, we vacate the Court and leave the matter, if it issue, is live dealt on to be remand.

IV judgment Appeals of the Court of in No. 87-1888 is judgment reversed and the in No. 87-1589 vacated, is proceedings are cases remanded for further consistent with opinion. this

So ordered. Stevens, Justice with whom Justice Brennan, Jus- join, concurring Marshall, tice and Justice Blackmun part dissenting part.

Regulated utilities do not have the same freedom re- spond pressures unregulated to market firms have.1 They example, not raise rates or cut services, with- permission regulatory agency. significantly out from Most they may cases, for these neither enter nor leave the market agency approval. Ignoring principle, without this the Court opinion perhaps II Part of its arrives at a result while that, preferable policy, previous as a matter of contradicts in- our terpretations of relevant statute.2 g., (1985). Hjelmfelt, 1 E. D. Regulated Antitrust and Industries 1.3 I agree description Because with the Court’s factual these and of cases 87-1589, join opinion. its resolution of No. I III I Parts of its govern- subject industry long of has been the The railroad year regulation.3 that indi- after this Court held A mental extending regulate powerless rail lines vidual were States beyond R. v. Illi- Wabash, L. & P. Co. S. boundaries, their (1886), Congress the Inter- established nois, 118 S. 557 U. (ICC) regulate economic as- state Commerce Commission industry. pects Act, 49 Interstate Commerce the rail § of V). (1982 Supp. Regulation seq. ed. U. 10101et S. C. industry relationships employment fol- within the rail of Railway Congress Labor enacted the 1926, lowed,4 and (RLA), seq. 151 et Act 45 U. S. C. by relatively intervening were marked decades six During

peaceful two statutes. coexistence between relationship, provided employment RLA course of the disputes. resolving n. ante, 496, 4; Con See Railway means for Corporation Labor Executives’ v. solidated Rail sought to end that ante, If a railroad Assn., at 302-304. by relationship the ICC consolidation, abandonment, sale, acceptance routinely approval of on the railroad’s conditioned pay job protection for em form of severance either or some change. ployees See United who would be affected (1939).5 ante, Cf. at 498. S. 225 Lowden, States U. 7-11, Regulated Jones, Materials on Industries W. 3 See Cases (2d Glaeser, Capitalism 1976); in American M. Public Utilities 24-55 ed. Commission, (1957); Sharfman, pt. 57-71 I. The Interstate Commerce (1931). pp. 11-35 amended, 4 See, as 45 U. S. C. g., Hours of Act of e. Service amended, §§51- 61-66; Liability §§ 45 U. S. C. Employers’ Act of Lecht, 180-182; Experience Railway L. under 60. See also Sharfman (1955). Legislation Labor 14-46 salary-level approved in Lowden included protective provisions Labor seniority severance and reloca maintenance, preservation rights, and S., concluding had the In ICC payments. 308 U. at 228. tion conditions, wrote for the Court: power impose Justice Stone such in the history railroad labor relations disregard the entire “One must just and reasonable treatment say that the to be able to United States carry- hardship imposed them in on employees mitigation railroad consolidation, bearing on the railway has no policy of ing out the national 517 symbiosis in This ended 1985, when ICC announced longer impose protective it that no would labor conditions on exceptional sales of short-line railroads unless circumstances (Sub. 1), Exemp No. 392 were shown. Ex Parte No. Class Acquisition Operation tion Rail Lines Under of (1985), 1, 9 10901, I. U. S. C. 1 C. C. 2d 810, 815 de review nied sub nom. Illinois Commerce v. ICC, Comm’n 260 U. S. App. (1987); 2d 38, D. C. 817 F. ante, see at 498-501. Suddenly important it became for railroad unions to obtain protections through bargaining. such labor collective Unlike employment agreements contracts, other however, rail labor by periodic renegotiation are altered not but notification, § pursuant RLA, to 6 156, 45 U. of a S. C. desire to change agreements. Arg. terms Tr. of See Oral 66-67. surprising litigation Thus it is not that the this unions did protective provisions just not seek labor 18 months until— protective plans after the ICC abdicated traditional role— to sell the railroad surfaced.6 disagreement protective provisions

There is no that labor related to of an the effects abandonment or sale be the subject bargaining. I follows, collective It believe, that railway request pro- when labor unions the inclusion of such prosecution policy relationship successful no to the maintenance adequate transportation Id., an system.” and efficient at 234. Assn., (1942). also v. Labor Railway See ICC Executives’ 315 U. S. 373 might greater bargain, The railroad had a duty have sug Court gests, had the negotiations unions served notice before sale had com ante, opinions menced. n. 19. See Yet in two that I believe cases, should control these we did not fault filing the unions for 6 notices anticipation in reaction to—rather than of—the railroads’ initiatives. Co., Compare Telegraphers Chicago Railroad N. R. & W. 362 U. S. (1960), id., (Whittaker, J., dissenting) (majority rejects at 349 argument § 6 improper railroad’s notices were because filed after rail petitioned permission road regulatory state commissions for to abolish jobs). See & Toledo Transportation also Detroit Shore Line R. Co. v. (1969). Union, In light abrupt U. S. of the ICC’s halt to its protections, moreover, practice requiring labor Court’s distinction unfairly penalizes litigation. the unions this 518 by proper collective-bargaining agreements

visions their employer statutory 496-497, 5,n. ante, at and notice, see statutorily quo during man- the status must maintain consequence process negotiating a of or risk a strike as dated §§ duty. RLA, 2 First, of of See Seventh breach that §§ admits the The Court First, 45 152 Seventh. U. S. C. employer acknowledges proposition that an and force of this bargain duty Ante, at a sale is announced. has when some to particular this dis- Nevertheless, it indicates that 512. preserve quo, pute obligate to the status the railroad did any bargaining prohibit “in effect for the would Court negotiations challenged sell,” and would allow to the decision Ante, is at 512.7 This as the sale closed. to cease soon employer’s duty of our de- contravenes two diminution of the interpreting RLA. cisions Chicago Telegraphers Co., N. W. R. 362

In & Railroad approval (1960), decided, with the of a railroad had U. S. 330 large regulatory number commissions, a of to abandon state at- and remove several hundred station its local stations thus payroll. that because the from the This Court held tendants employees “command[s] exert as well as railroads RLA disputes ‘concerning every rates effort to settle all reasonable ” working right pay, had a conditions,’ the union and rules, implementing par- prevent from to the railroad strike bargaining at Id., effects. tial without over abandonment First). §152 §2 (quoting RLA, 45 C. First of U. S. The Court continued: within mat may that a sale be closed neglects The Court to mention months, “virtually procedures to RLA entail

ter whereas resort mediation, arbitration, voluntary conciliation.’” ‘negotiation, endless Way Employes, S. R. v. Maintenance U. Burlington Northern Co. Line, 148-149). (1987) S., If the railroad Shore 396 U. (quoting consummated, will no is it have obligations will when the sale knows its end imposition of a mini bargaining. Thus Court's expedite incentive to they protection than employees scarcely duty more bargaining mal affords any duty. have would absent credulity say would stretch too far

“It that the Rail- way designed protect Act, Labor railroad workers, acting precisely violated was somehow the union purpose stability with that accordance Act’s obtain permanence employment workers. There is certainly express provision law, no we can infer making Act, Interstate none from the Commerce it un- to want to with lawful for unions discuss ac- railroads may vitally adversely security, that and affect tions the seniority stability jobs.” railroad S., and at U. 339-340.

Telegraphers management holds thus that if decides aban- to significant part impact don a of a business, railroad’s the employees’ job security subject proper that decision on is a bargaining the under RLA. Transportation Detroit & Toledo Shore R. Line Co. (Shore (1969) Line), Union, U. S. 142 a concerned rail proposal change assignments, make road’s new work nei prohibited by collective-bargaining ther authorized nor the agreement. The Court held that once the union had served bargain, obligated notice of its desire to the railroad was “ quo completion ‘pur maintain the until status of the RLA’s long posely bargaining process. and drawn out’” at Id., (quoting Railway Clerks v. Florida East Coast R. Co., 384 (1966)). rejected U. gument It S. further ar railroad’s quo” encompassed only working that the “status con expressed agreement parties: in an ditions between the language say “[T]he simply of 6 does not what the rail- say. speaks road would have it Instead, the section plainly pay, working rules, of ‘rates of or conditions’ any obligations already without limitation to those em- agreements. important, bodied collective More we persuaded interpretation that are the railroad’s of this sharply design at section is variance with overall purpose Railway S., of the Labor Act.” 396 U. 148. quo” mean “status “those The Court therefore construed broadly objective working practices, actual, conditions and prior pending conceived, in effect the time which were dispute that involved related to dis- arose and which are pute.” Id., at 153. why

Today proffers three Line reasons Shore the Court First, it that the Shore does these cases. asserts not control ‘objec- quo” holding Line includes “conditions that “status tively’ the union’s was served” in existence when notice language statute outer limits,” stretched the “to its if it is, that even ante, true; at 506. I am at all sure is holding unambiguous Second, has the law. is force of assignment suggests the fact that work Court jus- many years changed in Shore Line had been effect for changed expectation it would tified an bargaining “that not be without compliance quo provisions status effectively Ante, RLA.” This restates Justice at 506. argument limited to the Harlan’s in dissent while not agreements, quo obligation is lim- terms of written the status change practice. Line, a in ited to settled See Shore emphasis dissenting U. at 159-160. The Court’s on those S., controversy nothing, it remarks avails because the instant change procedure. By in out of a also arose established subjective objective therefore, it is measure, either a rea- among employees’jobs are sonable to concludethat these throughout “working preserved be conditions” that must process. bargaining points importantly, in most the Court out that

Third, Line had the railroad in cases, contrast with these Shore quit proposed assets, business, “to the railroad sell employer all,” at 507. The ante, cease to be a railroad “ ‘managerial prerog reply spite simple that, in of claims of is in Tele- much like advanced the Court ative’” those here8 (“We S., agree with at 336 Compare Telegraphers, 362 U. cannot job security negotiate Appeals effort to about that the union’s Court of usurp managerial pre- ‘represents attempt legitimate an of its members held that the effects of a railroad’s decision to graphers terminate a of its business constituted a part proper subject There is no relevant difference between the bargaining. Telegraphers abandonment and the transfer of partial own- cases: in rail both, these service would con- ership proposed before, tinue as but lose their many employees would jobs. Telegraphers, motive to cut costs elimi- Management’s by a number of nating large jobs, was of course dispensable per- reasonable. Thus when the Court held that the RLA fectly the railroad to over the effects of the required bargain Justice Clark wrote: change, the Court tells the railroad that it must bar-

“Today gain the union or suffer a strike. The latter would be the death knell all Hence, railroad. practi- cal is that it purposes, Court the railroad must telling secure the union’s before the hun- approval severing dreds of surplus now carried on its employees payroll. knows what the Everyone answer of union will be. It is like the who, suitor when the hand of seeking was told her to young lady, But, to father.’ ‘go ‘She knew that he knew that her father parody goes, dead; led; was she knew that he knew what a life he had and she knew he knew what she meant when she ’” said father.” S., U. at 343-344 “go (dissenting opinion).

Had the sale these cases the railroad would have proceeded, the same service with a work force of 250 as com- operated Ante, to 750 at 495. The economic bene- pared employees. fits of that reduction are as obvious as those that would have been achieved obsolete stations on the railroad by closing system Telegraphers. in It is I just obvious, believe, rogative judgment respect with the exercise of business to the most eco- ”), operations’ nomical and efficient conduct of its with Brief for Petitioner (“A go quintessential managerial decision to out of business is the prerogative”). Judge bargaining. As Becker again RLA commands Appeals: opinion for the Court

noted his fully ramifications aware of the unfortunate “We are bargaining and a irony order, A decision. of our designed injunction, conciliation, quo foster status ultimately keep peace, the rails run- promote labor destroy- perverse ultimately effect of ning, have perhaps ing only LE survival P & has for chance trying pro- very jobs are now that the unions even the happy Although result, this we with we are not tect. Supreme Court it, to reach because feel constrained apply judiciary not to appropriately admonished has contrary of a in the face ‘commonsense’ its own brand (CA3 1988)(cit- statutory 420, 446 845 F. 2d mandate.” (1978)). ing 153, 193-195 Hill, v. 437 U. S. TVA Line and to Shore result of adherence the natural To evade opinions declaring Telegraphers, on two later the Court relies right employer terminate his en has the absolute that “an any pleases,” v. Textile Workers reason he tire business (1965), Mfg. Darlington and that the Co., 380 U. S. mandatory subject consequences partial a closure are not Corp. bargaining, NLRB, National Maintenance First (1981). 17. But 507-509, and n. ante, See U. S. opinions interpreted National that the the strictures those industry. unregulated places As an Act on Labor Relations Corp., that is a situ National Maintenance we in First noted regulated governance of a RLA’s from the ation far different industry.9 Telegraphers that the decision

9 Westressed Railway Act and national trans- Labor aims of the particular on the “rested mandatory S., scope of bar- at 336-338. policy. 362 U. portation See Na- Railway Act. . . not coextensive [is] Labor under the gaining Relations] Board’s Labor [National Act and the Relations tional Labor Chicago N. W. R. Co. v. & practices. See unfair labor jurisdiction over (1971) (‘parallels between Union, n. 11 402 U. S. Transportation every duty reasonable and the to exert good faith duty bargain today regulation At issue is the RLA’s of a railroad’s free- Perhaps dom to leave market. the RLA’s restrictions on interpreted Telegraphers freedom, as and Shore Line, transportation do not best serve national interests. But Congress interpretations, since has not overruled those is, it Judge inappropriate forjudges observed, Becker to under- perceived policy take to fill the void. judgment reasons,

For I affirm these would of the Appeals Court of in No. 87-1888.

effort, Act, Railway NLRA parallels like all between the and the Labor should be with the utmost and with full drawn care awareness differ- schemes’).” First National Maintenance statutory ences between NLRB, (1981). 686-687, Corp. n. U. S.

Case Details

Case Name: Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Jun 21, 1989

Citation: 491 U.S. 490

Docket Number: 87-1589

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS