Ass'n of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO v. United Airlines, Inc.

583 F.Supp.3d 162

ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS-CWA, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff,

v.UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant.

No. 21-cv-01674 (DLF)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed January 27, 2022

Jeffrey A. Bartos, John J. Grunert, Jr., Guerrieri, Bartos & Roma PC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Robert Alan Siegel, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH, United States District Judge

The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) brings this case to enjoin a purported violation of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), Pub. L. No. 257, 44 Stat. 577 (1926) (codified at 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. ), by defendant United Airlines (United). See generally Compl., Dkt. 1. Before the Court is the defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(1), or in the Alternative Rule 12(b)(6), Dkt. 10. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute because it is a "minor dispute" under the RLA, subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures set forth in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Accordingly, the Court will grant United's motion under Rule 12(b)(1).

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background¹

AFA is a union that represents flight attendants across the country, including those employed by United Airlines. Compl. ¶ 6. AFA and United are parties to a CBA which "governs the terms and conditions of Flight Attendant employment and provides a process for company investigation and discipline of Flight Attendants." Compl. ¶ 8; see also Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 2 (2016–2021 Flight Attendants Agreement (CBA), Ex. 1 to Decl. of Robert T. Krabbe), Dkt. 10-3 (providing relevant CBA sections). This includes a flight attendant's right to union representation throughout this process. Compl. ¶ 8.

The events that lead to this case began in September 2020 when one flight attendant, Flight Attendant A,² "reported to management that he believed one or more of his co-workers had not abided by certain Company policies and United began an investigation of the matter." Compl. ¶ 17. Specifically, Flight Attendant A alleged that two other United flight attendants (Flight Attendants B and C) violated the airline's mask wearing policies on a trip between Washington Dulles and London Heathrow. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss Ex. 1 (Krabbe Decl.) ¶¶ 10–11, Dkt. 10-2. In October 2020, United issued Performance Warnings to Flight Attendants B and C for their alleged misconduct. Compl. ¶ 18.

Jill Collins and Donna Matallana, United flight attendants and locally based union representatives responsible for "enforcing the CBA and representing employees," id. ¶¶ 14, 16, represented Flight Attendants B and C in the investigation and disciplinary proceedings, id. ¶ 19. As union representatives, Collins and Matallana, among other things, contested United's investigatory findings, conducted interviews, collected witness statements, and gathered information, see id. ¶¶ 19–20; Krabbe Decl. ¶¶ 12–13.

In a March 2021 appeal hearing before United Senior Base Manager Janene Bell, Collins and Matallana presented evidence on behalf of Flight Attendant B that Bell refused to take into account. Compl. ¶¶ 21–22. This evidence included "multiple statements by flight attendants alleging misconduct by Flight Attendant A on different flights." Krabbe Decl. ¶ 13; see id. ¶ 14. Bell refused to consider the evidence because she deemed it irrelevant to the allegations relating to Flight Attendant B. See id. ¶¶ 13–16; Decl. of Jill Collins ¶ 16, Dkt. 5-4; Decl. of Donna Matallana ¶ 9, Dkt. 5-3.

Subsequently, and as a result of the allegations of misconduct, United initiated an investigation of Flight Attendant A. See Krabbe Decl. ¶ 16. United claims that it was unable to substantiate the allegations and concluded that "some of the most serious allegations that Ms. Matallana and Ms. Collin[s] presented against Flight Attendant A at Flight Attendant B's appeal hearing were demonstrably false." Id. ; see also id. ¶ 17 (discussing one written statement by Flight Attendant D); id. ¶ 19 (same by Flight Attendant E). United also learned that Flight Attendants D and E received related communications from Collins or Matallana. See id. ¶¶ 18–19.

During this time period, Flight Attendant A filed a second complaint, alleging that the flight attendants who had falsely accused him of misconduct were retaliating against him for notifying United of Flight Attendant B's failure to comply with the airline's mask policy. Id. ¶ 21. United initiated another investigation, see id. , and in the course of that investigation, interviewed a number of local flight attendants, Compl. ¶ 24; Krabbe Decl. ¶ 21. As a result of this investigation, United terminated nine flight attendants, including Flight Attendants D and E, for their dishonesty. See Krabbe Decl. ¶¶ 23–25. United also informed AFA that it was looking into the manner in which "Collins and Matallana conducted their Union investigations." Compl. ¶ 25. According to United, the terminated flight attendants indicated that Collins and Matallana solicited the false reports that they attempted to submit as evidence in Flight Attendant A's disciplinary hearing. Krabbe Decl. ¶ 25. Collins and Matallana do not deny that they collected and presented the witness statements that formed the basis for the retaliation claim, see Collins Decl. ¶¶ 14–17, 19; Matallana Decl. ¶¶ 7–11, 13, but they deny that they violated United's policy against retaliation, see Collins Decl. ¶ 19; Matallana Decl. ¶ 10.

In June 2021, United sent AFA a list of questions for Collins and Matallana. Compl. ¶ 29; Krabbe Decl. ¶ 28. The airline wanted to know to whom the union representatives had spoken in their investigation; what they asked the interviewees; and why they did so. Compl. ¶ 29; Krabbe Decl. ¶ 28. AFA refused to allow Collins and Matallana answer United's questions because it claimed they were "directed solely to [Collins's and Matallana's] actions in their capacity as Union representatives" and were an "attempt[ ] to illegally solicit the Union's defense strategy and confidential and protected internal union-member communication in violation of the RLA." Compl. ¶ 30; see Krabbe Decl. ¶ 29.

Nonetheless, United proceeded with its investigation of Collins and Matallana, and on June 22, 2021, issued Letters of Investigation for "their conduct during and related to the matter in which they served as union representatives defending a United Flight Attendant from discipline." Compl. ¶ 31; see Krabbe Decl. ¶¶ 30–31. Consistent with United's policy of "not permit[ting] fact witnesses to remain in the interview room when another fact witness is being interviewed," United also barred Collins and Matallana from being present for certain disciplinary hearings involving flight attendants from whom the union representatives had obtained information during the course of their representation of Flight Attendants B and C. Krabbe Decl. ¶ 22; see Collins Decl. ¶¶ 20–22; Matallana Decl. ¶¶ 11–12. Both union representatives continue to refuse to cooperate in the investigation. Collins Decl. ¶ 28; Matallana Decl. ¶ 14.

B. Procedural History

AFA brought this case on June 22, 2021, alleging that United had violated two sections of the Railway Labor Act. See generally Compl. The union claims that the airline's investigation of Collins and Matallana violates RLA § 2, Third, by "interfering with, influencing, and/or coercing Flight Attendants in the exercise of their right to designate representatives of their choosing." Compl. ¶ 34 (citing 45 U.S.C. § 152, Third). The union further claims that the airline's investigation of Collins and Matallana violates RLA § 2, Fourth, by "interfering with the organization of its Flight Attendants, ... influencing and/or coercing Flight Attendants in an effort to induce them not to join or remain members of the Union, and ... interfering with the right of Flight Attendants to freely participate in protected activity under the RLA." Comp. ¶ 39 (citing 45 U.S.C. § 152, Fourth). Finally, AFA alleges that United's actions "were motivated by anti-union animus and taken for the purpose of ... weaken[ing] ... and ultimately ... destroy[ing]" the union. Compl. ¶ 40.

On June 23, 2021, AFA moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction, Dkt. 5, and then promptly withdrew its request for a TRO, Notice of Withdrawal of Req. for TRO, Dkt. 6. Subsequently, the parties requested that the Court defer ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction pending resolution of United's dispositive motion. See Joint Proposed Schedule, Dkt. 9. United's motion to dismiss is now ripe for resolution.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 12(b)(1), a party may move to dismiss an action or claim when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). A motion for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) "presents a threshold challenge to the court's jurisdiction." Haase v. Sessions , 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987). "Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction," Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. , 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994), and it is "presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction." Id. (citing Turner v. Bank of N. Am. , 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 8, 11, 1 L.Ed. 718 (1799) ). Thus, to survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Moran v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. , 820 F. Supp. 2d 48, 53 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) ).

The RLA, which applies to the airline industry pursuant to 45 U.S.C. §§ 181 – 88, see Int'l Ass'n of Machinists, AFL-CIO v. Cent. Airlines, Inc. , 372 U.S. 682, 685–89, 83 S.Ct. 956, 10 L.Ed.2d 67 (1963), alters the traditional jurisdictional inquiry. The Act categorizes disputes as either "major" or "minor." See Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass'n (Conrail) ,...