BNSF Ry. Co. v. Int'l Ass'n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transp. Workers – Transp. Div.

586 F.Supp.3d 528

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff,

v.INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS – TRANSPORTATION DIVISION et al., Defendants.

No. 4:22-cv-0052-P

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division.

Signed February 22, 2022

David M. Pryor, Bnsf Railway Co., Russell D. Cawyer, Taylor J. Winn, Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP, Fort Worth, TX, Donald J. Munro, Jones Day, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Sanford R. Denison, Baab & Denison LLP, Dallas, TX, Erika A. Diehl-Gibbons, Pro Hac Vice, Kevin C. Brodar, Shawn M. McKinley, United Transportation Union, North Olmsted, OH, for Defendant International Association of Sheet Metal Air Rail and Transportation Workers.

Dimitre James Petroff, Pro Hac Vice, Joshua David McInerney, Wentz McInerney Peifer & Petroff LLC, Powell, OH, Rod Tanner, Tanner and Associates PC, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen.

OPINION & ORDER

Mark T. Pittman, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This case arises under the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"). At issue is whether Plaintiff BNSF Railway Company's ("BNSF") unilateral implementation of the High Visibility ("Hi Viz") attendance standard is a "major" or "minor" labor dispute. Whether the Hi Viz attendance standard is good or bad policy, however, is not at issue for this Court.

BNSF argues that the dispute is minor. Defendants International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers – Transportation Division ("SMART-TD") and Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen ("BLET") (collectively, the "Unions") argue that it is major.

Each Party filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. BNSF seeks injunctive relief barring what it argues would be an illegal strike over a minor dispute; the Unions seek injunctive relief preserving the status quo as the RLA requires in what they argue is a major dispute. As explained below, the Court will GRANT BNSF's Motion and DENY the Unions’ Motions.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

BNSF is a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce and headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. ECF No. 5 at 2; see also 45 U.S.C. § 151 First (defining "carrier"). SMART-TD, formerly United Transportation Union, and BLET are duly authorized representatives of the crafts or classes of train-service employees and locomotive engineers employed by BNSF. ECF Nos. 35 at 7, 38 at 6; see also 45 U.S.C. § 151 Sixth (defining "representative" labor organization).

B. The Dispute

Over two years ago, the Parties began negotiating new attendance standards. These specific negotiations were initiated by the service of Section 6 Notices. Despite these ongoing negotiations, BNSF unilaterally implemented the Hi Viz attendance standard on February 1, 2022.¹ In response, the Unions threatened to strike. Accordingly, this dispute stems from BNSF's unilateral implementation of the Hi Viz attendance standard.

C. The Hi Viz Attendance Standard

Simply stated, the Hi Viz attendance standard is harsh. See generally ECF Nos. 8 at 178–88, 22-1 at 39–51, 41 at 15–25. Employees start with 30 attendance points and are subject to various point deductions—or no deduction at all—based on different types of absences.² If, or when, an employee exhausts their 30 points, that employee is then subject to progressive discipline.³ After an employee exhausts their points, their point total is reset to 15 points.

To help employees avoid exhausting their points and facing potential discipline, the Hi Viz attendance standard grants employees the opportunity to earn "good-attendance credits"—a feature not available under BNSF's former attendance standard. Specifically, an employee can earn 4 points for any 14-day period that the employee is available for work. An employee could potentially make-up for any absence that caused a point deduction by being available to work for a 14-day period.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 13, 2022, BNSF filed this civil action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against SMART-TD and BLET. ECF Nos. 1, 5. Because the Unions represented that a strike was imminent, BNSF filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order on January 18, 2022. ECF Nos. 6–8. To ensure proper venue, the case was then transferred to the Fort Worth Division. ECF No. 15.

On January 24, 2022, the Court held a hearing on the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. ECF No. 18. At the hearing, the Parties cemented their respective positions: BNSF insisted it would implement the Hi Viz attendance standard on February 1, 2022, and the Unions insisted they would strike in response. ECF No. 30; see also ECF No. 56 at 13–14 ("Your Honor, we've already told the company that if they implement, then we've had that strike vote and we would strike." (emphasis added)).

The Court granted the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. ECF No. 30. The Unions then filed their answers to the Complaint and asserted counterclaims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. ECF Nos. 33, 35. Due to the importance of the dispute, the Court ordered expedited briefing. ECF Nos. 31, 37.

Because the Court's Temporary Restraining Order would have expired on February 8, 2022, and the Unions still intended to strike, BNSF filed a Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 47). To allow full consideration of the Motions for a Preliminary Injunction, the Court extended the Temporary Restraining Order, which is now set to expire on February 22, 2022. ECF No. 52. The Motions for a Preliminary Injunction are ripe for review.

LEGAL STANDARD

A. The Railway Labor Act

"[R]elations between railroads and their workers have often been stormy." Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps. , 143 F. Supp. 2d 672, 678 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (McBryde, J.). "As another judge noted, ‘the origins of this matter (as well as many other disputes) can probably be traced back prior to 1894, when Eugene V. Debs led members of the American Railway Union in a turbulent strike against the Pullman Palace Car Company of Illinois.’ " Id. (quoting Alton & S. Ry. Co. v. Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps. , 883 F. Supp. 755, 756 (D.D.C. 1995) ; see also 1 HARRY S. TRUMAN , MEMOIRS BY HARRY S. TRUMAN: YEAR OF DECISIONS 500–02 (1995)) (discussing the "drastic measures" that might be necessary to quash railroad labor disputes).

Accordingly, the "major purpose of Congress in passing the Railway Labor Act was ‘to provide a machinery to prevent strikes’ " in order to "safeguard the vital interests of the country" in uninterrupted rail service. Tex. & N. O. R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Ry. & S.S. Clerks , 281 U.S. 548, 565, 50 S.Ct. 427, 74 L.Ed. 1034 (1930) ; see also 45 U.S.C. § 151a.

At the "heart of the [RLA]," Atlanta & W. Point R. Co. v. United Transp. Union , 439 F.2d 73, 77 (5th Cir. 1971), is the "duty of all carriers ... and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements ... and to settle all disputes ... between the carrier and the employees thereof." 45 U.S.C. § 152 First. To that end, the RLA sets out a mandatory and "virtually endless" process of "negotiation, mediation, voluntary arbitration, and conciliation." Burlington N. R.R. v. Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps. , 481 U.S. 429, 444, 107 S.Ct. 1841, 95 L.Ed.2d 381 (1987).

Traditionally, labor disputes in the railroad industry have fallen into two distinct categories: those that are "major" and those that are "minor." Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Lab. Execs.’ Ass'n , 491 U.S. 299, 302–04, 109 S.Ct. 2477, 105 L.Ed.2d 250 (1989) (" Conrail "). Although the terms "major dispute" and "minor dispute" are not found in the statute, RLA jurisprudence adopted the phrases "major" and "minor" as "terms of art." Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs & Trainmen (Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent. Region) v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. , 879 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2017).

Major disputes find their statutory basis in 45 U.S.C. § 152 Seventh and 45 U.S.C. § 156 ; they "relate[ ] to disputes over the formation of collective agreements or efforts to secure them." Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co. v. Burley , 325 U.S. 711, 723, 65 S.Ct. 1282, 89 L.Ed. 1886 (1945). That is, in a major dispute, the "issue is not whether an existing agreement controls the controversy." Id. Rather, major disputes "arise where there is no such agreement or where it is sought to change the terms of one," id. , and "[t]hey look to the acquisition of rights for the future, not to assertion of rights claimed to have vested in the past." Wright v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. , 990 F.3d 428, 435 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Elgin , 325 U.S. at 723, 65 S.Ct. 1282 ).

The process for resolving a major dispute is extensive. And until the parties exhaust the statutorily mandated procedures, "neither party may unilaterally alter the status quo" by resorting to illegal self-help. Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co. , 394 U.S. 369, 378, 89 S.Ct. 1109, 22 L.Ed.2d 344 (1969). Should one of the parties unilaterally alter the status quo during the bargaining and mediation process, however, a court has "subject-matter jurisdiction to enjoin a violation of the status quo pending completion of the required procedures." Conrail , 491 U.S. at 303, 109 S.Ct. 2477.

Conversely, minor disputes are based on 45 U.S.C. § 152 Sixth and 45 U.S.C. § 153 First; they "relate either to the meaning or proper application of a particular provision" with reference to a specific situation. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Int'l Ass'n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transp. Workers – Transp. Div. , 973 F.3d 326, 335 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Elgin , 325 U.S. at 723, 65 S.Ct. 1282 ) (cleaned up). In other words, minor disputes "contemplate the existence of a collective agreement already concluded," id. (cleaned up), and the claim central to the dispute is "to rights accrued, not merely to have new ones created for the future." Wright , 990 F.3d at 435 (quoting Elgin , 325 U.S. at 723, 65 S.Ct. 1282 ).

To summarize, "a proposed action creates a minor dispute ‘if the action is arguably...