FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 2, 2010
PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
BROTHERHOOD OF
MAINTENANCE OF WAY
EMPLOYES DIVISION,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, and
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD
SIGNALMEN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. No. 08-2232
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA
FE RAILWAY COMPANY, and
GARY GIRON, in his capacity as
Secretary-Designee, New Mexico
Department of Transportation,
Defendants-Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
(D.C. NO. CIV-06-245-JCH)
John O’B. Clarke, Jr., Highsaw, Mahoney & Clarke, P.C., Washington, District of
Columbia, for Appellants BMWED and BRS.
David M. Pryor, BNSF Railway Company, Fort Worth, Texas (Donald J. Munro,
Goodwin Proctor LLP, Washington, District of Columbia, and John R. Conney
and Earl E. DeBrine, Jr., Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk, P.A.,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, with him on the brief), for Appellee BNSF Railway
Company, and Gail Gottlieb (Mark Chaiken and Kerry Kiernan with her on the
brief), Sutin, Thayer & Browne, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Appellee
Secretary-Designee Gary Giron.
Before TACHA, TYMKOVICH, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.
This case arises from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company’s
(BNSF) proposed sale of approximately 290 miles of BNSF’s rail line to the New
Mexico Department of Transportation. New Mexico sought to obtain the rail line
as part of a plan to provide commuter rail service between Albuquerque, Santa Fe,
and other points within the state. Under the terms of sale, New Mexico would
obtain ownership of BNSF’s rail lines, but reserve to BNSF a concurrent freight
easement on the lines. New Mexico would also take over maintenance
responsibilities of the right-of-way, an obligation previously belonging to BNSF.
In an effort to prevent New Mexico from assuming the maintenance
responsibilities, two union organizations representing rail workers who had
previously performed the maintenance work sued. They contended the
assignment of the maintenance obligations (1) violated § 2 Seventh of the
Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.; and (2) breached the
collective bargaining agreement between the workers and BNSF.
The district court dismissed the action, concluding it lacked jurisdiction
over the claims. It held the RLA vests exclusive jurisdiction over the workers’
-2-
claims in the National Railroad Adjustment Board, which has yet to review the
case.
We agree with the district court. As explained below, we find the RLA
reserves the dispute in this case to the Adjustment Board in the first instance, thus
depriving the district court of jurisdiction. The workers’ remedy lies in the
administrative process before the Adjustment Board.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of the complaint.
I. Background
The Transaction. As part of a project to expand public commuter rail
service in central New Mexico, the New Mexico Department of Transportation
entered into several agreements to purchase a portion of a rail line from BNSF.
Under the proposed agreements, BNSF would transfer fee simple ownership in the
physical assets of the rail lines to the state.
As part of the transaction, BNSF reserved an exclusive freight easement
over the tracks. The easement, among other things, “reserve[d] for [BNSF] and
its successors and assigns an exclusive easement for freight railroad purposes,
including but not limited to, the construction, maintenance, repair, replacement
and operation of freight rail and associated facilities.” App. at 250. The parties’
respective management obligations were set forth in a Joint Use Agreement
(JUA). Specifically, the JUA provided that New Mexico “will be responsible for
-3-
the management and maintenance of the Rail Corridor, subject to BNSF’s
Retained Freight Easement.” App. at 225–26. 1
Statutory Provisions. BNSF and New Mexico structured the transaction to
ensure New Mexico would not acquire any obligation to provide freight common
carrier service under the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), 49 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
The ICA subjects common carriers to the jurisdiction of the Surface
Transportation Board (STB), which imposes a comprehensive scheme of
regulations on rail carriers.
As relevant here, the ICA provides that the sale of active rail lines is
subject to the STB’s prior approval. See 49 U.S.C. § 10901. In particular, the
acquisition of an active rail line and the corresponding transfer of common carrier
obligations ordinarily requires prior STB approval, even if the acquiring entity is
not presently a common carrier. See Dept. of Transp.—Acquisition and Operation
Exemption—Maine Cent. R.R. Co., 8 I.C.C. 2d 835, 836–37 (1991); see also Cent.
Puget Sound Reg’l Transit Auth.—Acquisition Exemption—BNSF Ry. Co., Fin.
No. 34747, 2005 WL 3090144, at *2 (STB Nov. 18, 2005). The STB does not,
however, have prior approval authority over a transaction where no common
1
The JUA also provided that New Mexico would charge BNSF for the rail
company’s proportionate share of maintenance costs for the portions of the rail
line used by both parties. New Mexico would also inspect and maintain sidings,
spurs, or industrial tracks not used for commuter service on the relevant
segments. App. at 229.
-4-
carrier rights or obligations are being transferred. Maine, 8 I.C.C. 2d at 836–37;
see also Port of Seattle—Acquisition Exemption—Certain Assets of BNSF Ry. Co.,
Fin. No. 35128, 2008 WL 4718447, at *2 (STB Oct. 23, 2008).
Regulatory Proceedings. New Mexico initially filed notice of the proposed
transaction with the STB. Later, the state sought dismissal of the agency
proceedings since it would not become a common carrier as a result of the
transaction and no agency action was therefore necessary. The STB agreed and
dismissed the agency proceeding, declaring the “transaction does not require
Board authorization” because “BNSF would not be transferring common carrier
rights or obligations and . . . [New Mexico] would not hold itself out as a
common carrier. . . . Under these circumstances, [New Mexico] would not become
. . . subject to the Board’s jurisdiction.” App. at 151–52.
District Court Action. Once the STB stated it had no jurisdiction, the
transaction was free to move forward. The rail workers then filed suit in federal
district court, arguing that BNSF violated the RLA and the collective bargaining
agreement between BNSF and the rail workers (CBA) in assigning the
maintenance responsibility to New Mexico. The rail workers contended BNSF
did not in fact transfer the maintenance obligations to New Mexico; rather, the
rail company simply contracted that work to the state. The rail workers argue
that as long as BNSF has the obligation to provide maintenance to the rail line, it
may not, under the CBA, assign or contract that work to anyone other than union
-5-
employees. The workers maintained that by relinquishing the work to New
Mexico, BNSF violated the terms of the CBA, as well as RLA provisions that
prohibit unilateral changes in the pay rates, rules, or working conditions already
set forth in collective bargaining agreements. 2 The rail workers sought (1) a
declaratory judgment that BNSF, as the sole common carrier entity operating on
the line, has a nondelegable obligation to maintain its right-of-way, (2) a
declaratory judgment that BNSF violated the RLA by contracting the maintenance
work to New Mexico, and (3) an injunction reforming the current transaction and
preventing any future transactions violative of the RLA.
BNSF and New Mexico moved to dismiss the workers’ complaint. The
district court agreed, concluding it did not have jurisdiction and that under the
RLA the National Railroad Adjustment Board governed the dispute. Accordingly,
the district court dismissed the complaint with the understanding the dispute
would be subject to binding arbitration proceedings before the Adjustment Board.
II. Analysis
On appeal, the rail workers argue the district court erred in concluding the
Adjustment Board has exclusive jurisdiction over their claims. We review legal
2
Section 2, Seventh of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 152, Seventh, provides, “No
carrier, its officers, or agents shall change the rates of pay, rules, or working
conditions of its employees, as a class, as embodied in agreements except in the
manner prescribed in such agreements or in section 156 of this title.” Thus, any
violation of § 2, Seventh assumes a violation of an already existing agreement.
-6-
questions involving a district court’s subject matter jurisdiction de novo. See
Bhd. of Maint. of Way Employes Div./IBT v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 460 F.3d 1277,
1282 (10th Cir. 2006). We agree with the district court that it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction because the RLA reserves cases such as this for binding
arbitration before the Adjustment Board.
A. Legal Framework for Resolving RLA Disputes
The RLA provides a comprehensive and mandatory framework for
resolving labor disputes under collective bargaining agreements. Hawaiian
Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 252 (1994). It aims “to encourage
collective bargaining by railroads and their employees in order to prevent, if
possible, wasteful strikes and interruptions of interstate commerce.” United
Transp. Union v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 528 F.3d 674, 677–678 (9th
Cir. 2008) (quoting Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R.R. Co. v. United Transp.
Union, 396 U.S. 142, 148 (1969)). “To this end, the RLA establishes elaborate
procedures for the negotiation, enforcement, and modification of collective
bargaining agreements between railroad carriers and labor unions.” Id. at 678
(quoting Union R.R. Co. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 242 F.3d 458, 463 (3d
Cir. 2001)).
The RLA sets forth two provisions relevant to the workers’ claims. The
first is 45 U.S.C. § 152, Seventh (“§ 2, Seventh”). Under this provision, no
carrier “shall change the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions of its
-7-
employees, as a class, as embodied in agreements except in the manner prescribed
in such agreements or in § 6 of [the RLA].” Pursuant to § 6, 45 U.S.C. § 156,
carriers must give notice of major changes to pay, rules, or working conditions
and, if arbitration is requested, maintain the status quo ante during the
proceedings. The rail workers contend BNSF breached the “scope of work”
provisions contained in its collective bargaining agreement and thereby violated
§ 2, Seventh by improperly contracting the maintenance responsibilities on the
rail lines to New Mexico.
RLA disputes can be resolved either in federal court or in the Adjustment
Board through binding arbitration. To determine which forum is appropriate in
the first instance, the Supreme Court has created a two-part classification system:
If a dispute is “major,” it is not subject to Adjustment Board arbitration and
should be resolved in federal court. If a dispute is “minor,” binding arbitration
before the Adjustment Board is mandatory. This appeal requires us to determine
whether the disagreement between the rail workers and BNSF qualifies as a major
or minor dispute.
B. Major and Minor Disputes
The RLA provides little guidance regarding how to determine whether a
dispute is major or minor, but a series of well-established Supreme Court cases
have laid out a framework for answering this question. See Cons. Rail Corp. v.
Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299 (1989) (“Conrail”); Norris, 512 U.S.
-8-
at 252–57. “Major disputes relate to the formation of collective [bargaining]
agreements.” Norris, 512 U.S. at 252 (quotations omitted). These disputes relate
to contract formation and arise
where there is no such agreement or where it is sought to change the
terms of one, and therefore the issue is not whether an existing
agreement controls the controversy. They look to the acquisition of
rights for the future, not to assertion of rights claimed to have vested
in the past.
Conrail, 491 U.S. at 302 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). Thus, “major
disputes seek to create contractual rights.” Id.
In contrast, “minor disputes” seek to “enforce [contractual rights].” Id.
They arise “out of the interpretation or application of” existing collective
bargaining agreements. Id. at 303 (quoting 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (i)). Such
disputes contemplate
the existence of a collective agreement already concluded or, at any
rate, a situation in which no effort is made to bring about a formal
change in terms or to create a new one. The dispute relates either to
the meaning or proper application of a particular provision with
reference to a specific situation or to an omitted case. In the latter
event the claim is founded upon some incident of the employment
relation, or asserted one, independent of those covered by the
collective agreement, e.g., claims on account of personal injuries. In
either case the claim is to rights accrued, not merely to have new
ones created for the future.
Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
The Supreme Court has stressed that the relative importance of a case does
not determine whether it qualifies as a major or minor dispute. Conrail, 491 U.S.
-9-
at 305. Rather, we look to “whether a claim has been made that the terms of an
existing agreement either establish or refute the presence of a right to take the
disputed action. The distinguishing feature of such a case is that the dispute may
be conclusively resolved by interpreting the existing agreement.” Id. To say “a
minor dispute can be ‘conclusively resolved’ by interpreting the CBA is another
way of saying that the dispute does not involve rights that exist independent of
the CBA.” Norris, 512 U.S. at 265. The essence of the inquiry is whether the
source of a party’s asserted legal right is its collective bargaining agreement.
The Supreme Court has emphasized the primary importance of labor
arbitration under the RLA. To that end, the default position for courts is to deem
a dispute as minor if it even remotely touches on the terms of the relevant
collective bargaining agreement. “[W]hen in doubt” the courts are to “construe
disputes as minor.” Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs v. Atchison, Topeka & S. F. Ry.
Co., 768 F.2d 914, 920 (7th Cir. 1985). Indeed, a party bears a “relatively light
burden” in establishing exclusive jurisdiction in the Adjustment Board under the
RLA. Conrail, 491 U.S. at 307.
To meet this burden, a party need only show that the contested action is
“arguably justified” by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. Conrail,
491 U.S. at 304–05, 307, 310. The Supreme Court declared,
We hold that if an employer asserts a claim that the parties’
agreement gives the employer the discretion to make a particular
change in working conditions without prior negotiation, and if that
-10-
claim is arguably justified by the terms of the parties’ agreement
(i.e., the claim is neither obviously insubstantial or frivolous, nor
made in bad faith), the employer may make the change and the courts
must defer to the arbitral jurisdiction of the Board.
Id. at 310 (emphasis added).
The Court has identified a number of factors to consider in determining
whether either party’s claim is “arguably justified.” We look first and primarily,
of course, to both the express and implied provisions of the collective bargaining
agreement. Conrail, 491 U.S. at 320 (holding a dispute was minor because it was
“arguably justified by the implied terms of its collective-bargaining agreement”).
Of equal importance is the parties’ “practice, usage and custom” in negotiating
and operating under applicable labor agreements. Id. at 311 (“[I]t is well
established that the parties’ ‘practice, usage and custom’ is of significance in
interpreting their agreement.”).
Other non-exclusive factors arising from cases applying Conrail include
(1) arbitration decisions interpreting the bargaining agreement, (2) arbitration
decisions interpreting similar language in other bargaining agreements, (3) the
absence of a term prohibiting the carrier’s action, (4) industry practice, (5) the
intent behind and nature of the actions giving rise to the dispute, (6) any relevant
amendments or side letters, and (7) unsuccessful attempts to “obtain through
bargaining rights the carrier later contended it possessed.” ABA, T HE R AILWAY
L ABOR A CT , 389–93 (2d ed. 2005).
-11-
To some extent, courts acknowledge that the distinction between major and
minor disputes can be a matter of artful pleading. Conrail, 491 U.S. at 305.
“[T]here is a danger in leaving the characterization of the dispute solely in the
hands of one party” when it “chooses whether to assert an existing contractual
right to take or to resist the action in question.” Id. Where the party “asserting a
contractual basis for its claim is insincere in so doing, or its position [is] founded
upon . . . insubstantial grounds, the result of honoring that party’s
characterization would be to undercut the prohibitions of § 2, Seventh, and § 6 of
the Act against unilateral imposition of new contractual terms.” Id. at 306
(quotations and citations omitted). In such a situation, “protection of the proper
functioning of the statutory scheme requires the court to substitute its
characterization for that of the claimant.” Id.
In this case, there is no contention BNSF’s defenses are frivolous or
insincere, nor does the rail workers’ pleading or BNSF’s response prevent us from
discerning the essence of the dispute.
C. The Dispute Here Is Minor
With these principles in mind, we turn to the claims in this case. Under the
lenient standards the Supreme Court has set forth, a dispute qualifies as minor
when it is “arguably justified” by the express and implied terms of the collective
bargaining agreement. As we explain below, the district court correctly
determined the contested action in this case—BNSF’s contracting maintenance
-12-
responsibilities to New Mexico—was “arguably justified” under the CBA’s scope
of work provision.
First, the CBA supports BNSF’s position. The CBA places no restrictions
on the company’s right to sell rail lines. Nor does the CBA explicitly establish
that BNSF is obligated to continue using its employees to maintain lines BNSF
has sold but over which it retains a freight easement and common carrier
obligations. That the CBA’s scope of work provisions obligate BNSF to assign
work to its employees only if the company retains ownership of the property and
control over the rail lines is arguable. “Contractual silence can be construed as a
reservation to the employer of the right to act unilaterally.” T HE R AILWAY L ABOR
A CT , supra at 395. The tracks here were transferred in fee simple to New
Mexico, and the JUA vested maintenance responsibility in the new owner. 3
Reviewing the CBA’s reservation of work against these facts is a matter well
suited for arbitration proceedings before the Adjustment Board.
Second, “practice, usage and custom,” Conrail, 491 U.S. at 311, support the
conclusion that BNSF’s position is “arguably justified” by the CBA. Cf. Air Line
Pilots Ass'n, Int’l. v. Guilford Transp. Indus. Inc., 399 F.3d 89, 93 (1st Cir. 2005)
3
In support of its flexibility under the CBA’s scope of work provisions,
BNSF also points out the CBA grants BNSF the unilateral right to abolish
assignments and reduce the number of maintenance positions, so long as it
provides requisite notice to the unions. This bolsters BNSF’s claim that a
reduction of maintenance obligations along the transferred track is not a violation
of the CBA even if it retains residual rights under the easement.
-13-
(“A dispute is considered minor whenever the challenged conduct is ‘arguably
justified’ either by the text and negotiating history of the CBA or by the past
practices of the parties.”); Bhd. of Ry. & Steamship Clerks v. Atchison, Topeka &
S.F. Ry. Co., 847 F.2d 403, 406 (7th Cir. 1988) (finding the railroad produced
sufficient evidence of past practice to render the dispute minor). The record
shows, for example, that BNSF has previously sold properties to third parties and
ceded its maintenance obligations. 4 For example, in the mid-1990s, BNSF sold a
right-of-way to public agencies in California, retained an exclusive freight
easement over the lines, but was no longer responsible for maintaining the track.
App. at 89. BNSF also points to transactions where it has retained a freight
easement and common carrier obligations, without retaining any obligation to
maintain the property. App. at 97–98. 5
Third, several arbitration decisions involving leased or sold railroad
properties support BNSF’s position. App. at 99–113. For example, BNSF points
4
Whether these previous transactions bear on the interpretation of the
CBA is a question for the Adjustment Board. For our purposes, it is enough that
they arguably justify classifying the dispute as arising out of the CBA.
5
See Cent. Puget Sound, 2005 WL 3090144, at *1–2 (Nov. 18, 2005)
(dismissing a notice of exemption because BNSF was not transferring common
carrier obligations to Sound Transit when, along with the purchase and sale
agreements, Sound Transit entered into a joint use agreement with BNSF under
which BNSF retained the exclusive common carrier obligation to provide freight
service to all existing and new customers and retained responsibility for
dispatching the commuter operations on the lines, while Sound Transit became
responsible for maintenance activities).
-14-
to an Adjustment Board decision in which the union claimed the carrier
improperly subcontracted repair work after leasing facilities to a local industry.
App. at 102. The Adjustment Board ruled in the carrier’s favor, noting “the work
was done at the direction of the Lessee who initiated and completed the work.”
Id. The Adjustment Board found the carrier was not aware of the work, and the
Lessee was free to contract out maintenance to whomever it chose. Id. The
union, the Adjustment Board concluded, failed to show that the work belonged to
its members. Id. In another decision with similar facts, BNSF leased railroad-
owned facilities to General Motors, which then contracted the maintenance and
construction work out to a third party. App. at 104. The union argued the
arrangement violated the collective bargaining agreement’s subcontracting rules,
but the Adjustment Board ruled that because the facility was no longer part of
BNSF’s operation, the maintenance work no longer belonged to union employees.
Id. at 106. The facilities were under GM’s control, and GM could contract the
work as it saw fit. Id. Other decisions have similarly held that control is the
central issue, and that when the carrier does not have control over the work
performed, because it either leased or sold the property, the carrier no longer has
the obligation to perform the maintenance and to use union employees. App. at
108–113. 6
6
The workers here, of course, will be free to argue before the Adjustment
(continued...)
-15-
Finally, our conclusion accords with the decisions of other federal courts
classifying disputes as minor under collective bargaining agreements. See, e.g.,
Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l. Ass’n v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 893 F.2d 199,
203–205 (8th Cir. 1990) (whether the agreement permitted the railroad to use
nonunion employees of a wholly owned subsidiary to maintain locomotives used
by the railroad to generate electricity could arguably be resolved by the scope
clause of the agreement between the union and railroad, and, therefore, this was a
minor dispute, even though the railroad’s argument that the agreement permitted
its action might be wrong); Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, United Transp. Union, W.
Md. Ry. Co. v. CSX R.R. Corp., 893 F.2d 584, 592 (3d. Cir. 1990) (noting “several
other courts have also categorized disputes involving rail line sales that caused
the loss of union positions as minor under the RLA”).
While none of the above factors is dispositive, they all arguably justify
BNSF’s explanation for its actions. The Adjustment Board will ultimately
determine the strength of those explanations when it resolves whether or not
BNSF breached the CBA.
* * *
In sum, the dispute here meets Conrail’s “arguably justified” standard.
Under the CBA and in light of the relevant factors that guide our inquiry, BNSF
6
(...continued)
Board that the circumstances surrounding previous arbitration awards are distinct.
-16-
arguably had the authority to sell the rail lines at issue and to include in that sale
the responsibility to maintain the lines—reducing union maintenance
jobs—despite retaining a freight easement and common carrier obligations.
BNSF’s view of the CBA is sufficiently reasonable to meet its “relatively light
burden” under Conrail. 491 U.S. at 307.
D. The Rail Workers’ Arguments
The rail workers make two arguments to avoid this conclusion, but neither
is persuasive.
The first argument is that the RLA requires a “two-step inquiry.” Aplt. Br.
at 33. According to the rail workers, before we can decide whether BNSF
breached the CBA, we must first resolve a threshold issue; namely, whether
BNSF transferred the maintenance obligations to New Mexico when it sold the
physical assets of the rail line. The rail workers claim the Adjustment Board will
have to look at the line transfer transaction, the STB’s decision regarding that
transaction, and BNSF’s obligations under the ICA. The rail workers argue the
Adjustment Board has neither the jurisdiction nor the expertise to examine those
matters, and thus this dispute cannot fall into the minor category. The rail
workers aver that, with the additional threshold analysis, the case moves beyond
merely interpreting the CBA and qualifies as a major dispute. We disagree.
First of all, the workers are correct that the Adjustment Board must
determine whether BNSF actually transferred the maintenance obligations to New
-17-
Mexico when BNSF transferred the physical railroad line. 7 The rail workers will
be entitled to show that BNSF retained control over maintenance obligations on
the freight easement. To resolve that question, the Adjustment Board will have to
consider several issues, including an interpretation of the line-transfer documents
and the JUA, as well as the rail workers’ contention that BNSF retained all the
rights and obligations of a freight common carrier under the ICA.
The rail workers argue that because the Adjustment Board cannot resolve
their main contention—that BNSF violated the CBA and thus the RLA—without
first addressing these issues, the case qualifies as a major dispute. They reason
that the Adjustment Board will not interpret the terms of the CBA, a necessity for
a minor dispute, but will first answer the threshold question of whether the CBA
even applies. Without citing any legal authority, the rail workers argue the
Adjustment Board does not have jurisdiction to review the ICA, the STB’s
decision, or the sales documents in answering the threshold question, and that
even if it did, it is not equipped to do so.
The rail workers’ arguments fail because they cannot rebut the undisputed
fact that the only source of their right to work is the CBA. See Norris, 512 U.S.
7
If BNSF did transfer the maintenance obligations, then the company no
longer has any duty to perform the maintenance and thus no CBA obligation to
use union employees. If, on the other hand, the rail workers show that BNSF
retained the maintenance obligations, they contend the CBA obligates the
company to use union employees for any maintenance work.
-18-
at 265. They have no claims that exist independent of it. That the Adjustment
Board will have to consider issues related to both the interpretation of the CBA
and its application does not change this fact. Naturally, the Adjustment Board
will look to documents, cases, statutes, and past practices outside the four corners
of the document to do that. In the end, the Adjustment Board must still determine
whether BNSF violated the CBA. And the Adjustment Board is perfectly capable
of reviewing whether BNSF actually divested itself of maintenance obligations, or
whether the line-sale transaction was a subterfuge to evade the requirements of
the CBA. 8
Because the Adjustment Board will be doing nothing more than interpreting
and applying the CBA to disputed facts, and because it has authority to do so, the
district court properly characterized this case as a minor dispute. As the district
court explained,
Plaintiff alleges that its members have the contractual right to
perform the maintenance work at issue. BNSF contends that
Plaintiff’s members have no right to perform work on track sold to a
third party, and has plausible contractual justifications for its actions.
This is the very essence of a minor dispute over which this Court has
no jurisdiction. If a board of adjustment arbitrator examines the
terms of the sale between BNSF and the State and finds that BNSF
8
Our position is consistent with the Second Circuit in Bhd. Locomotive
Eng’rs Div. 269 v. Long Island R.R., 85 F.3d 35, 38 (2d Cir. 1996), where the
court rejected a claim that the “conclusively resolved” language from Conrail or
Norris created a “new, more demanding standard” for classifying minor disputes.
Courts have been consistent in applying the “arguably justified” standard in
categorizing disputes.
-19-
retained enough control over the right-of-way such that maintenance
by the State would constitute illegal subcontracting, it can order
BNSF to pay Plaintiff’s claims until such time as Plaintiff is no
longer being harmed by BNSF’s contract violation. This would
completely resolve Plaintiff’s RLA claim.
App. at 340–41. This lucid reasoning explains the centrality of the CBA to this
case.
We similarly dispose of the rail workers’ second argument. They contend
the dispute concerns the application of the CBA, and not its interpretation. The
workers insist this creates a “hybrid” category that fits outside the minor
classification. We again disagree.
As an initial matter, the RLA is clear no line exists between disputes that
arise from the application of collective bargaining agreements and those that
arise from their interpretation. In fact, the RLA applies plainly to collective
bargaining agreement application claims as well as interpretation claims. See,
e.g., 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (i) (RLA applies to disputes arising from “the
interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or
working conditions”); Bhd. of Maint. of Way Employes Div./IBT v. Union Pac.
R.R. Co., 460 F.3d 1277, 1282 (10th Cir. 2006) (explaining minor disputes
“relate[ ] either to the meaning or proper application of a particular provision” of
a collective bargaining agreement) (citation omitted). While major disputes seek
to create contractual rights, minor disputes seek to enforce them. Id. At base, a
-20-
minor dispute is one in which a party seeks to enforce preexisting contractual
rights. Conrail, 491 U.S. at 302.
Even if the text of the RLA were not clear enough, Conrail and subsequent
cases routinely apply the major/minor framework in these situations. The
Supreme Court, in fact, rejected a variation of the rail workers’ argument in
Conrail and instead adopted an analysis that channels most cases into the minor
category. The major/minor framework is drawn from the traditional “vocabulary
of rail management and rail labor, as a shorthand method of describing two
classes of controversy.” Id. It bears repeating:
[W]e shall not aggravate the already difficult task of distinguishing
between major disputes and minor disputes by adding a third
category of hybrid disputes. We hold that if an employer asserts a
claim that the parties’ agreement gives the employer the discretion to
make a particular change in working conditions without prior
negotiation, and if that claim is arguably justified by the terms of the
parties’ agreement ( i.e., the claim is neither obviously insubstantial
or frivolous, nor made in bad faith), the employer may make the
change and the courts must defer to the arbitral jurisdiction of the
Board.
Id. The Supreme Court’s cautioning instruction in Conrail retains its vitality.
We will not create a new category of dispute absent further guidance from the
Court.
No matter the complexity with which the rail workers state their claim, this
is fundamentally a case concerning the enforcement of preexisting contractual
rights. The ultimate question is whether the alleged contracting of maintenance
-21-
obligations to New Mexico violated the existing CBA, which requires union
employees to perform BNSF’s maintenance work. This case is squarely a minor
dispute under the RLA.
In conclusion, this is not a case involving the unilateral creation of a new
collective bargaining agreement or even new terms or rights under the existing
CBA. Instead, it falls comfortably under Conrail’s default category of minor
disputes in which a party seeks to enforce a collective bargaining agreement.
III. Conclusion
Because the dispute is minor, it is subject to mandatory arbitration. The
district court correctly determined arbitration is the proper venue for this dispute,
and we therefore AFFIRM its order.
Given the above conclusion, we need not address the sovereign immunity
issues concerning the Secretary. Appellants' Renewed Motion for an Injunction
Pending Appeal is DENIED without prejudice.
-22-