Thought this was interesting. Seems RA might get his wish of no more unions except for ALPA. That is of course if history repeats itself. There is much more to the case but I can't copy and past it all. Enjoy......
DELTA AIR LINES, INC., PETITIONER V. ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT
ATTENDANTS, AFL-CIO
No. 89-459
In The Supreme Court Of The United States
October Term, 1989
On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of
Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit
Brief For The United States As Amicus Curiae
This brief is filed in response to the Court's invitation to the
Solicitor General to express the views of the Untied States.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Questions Presented
Statement
Discussion
Conclusion
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether, after two air carriers merge, the National Mediation
Board's exclusive jurisdiction over representation disputes bars
arbitration of a union's claim for damages based on the alleged
violation by one of the carriers of the successorship provision of its
collective bargaining agreement.
2. Whether a union's request for arbitration of its damages claim
for breach of a successorship provision in a collective bargaining
agreement is rendered moot by the National Mediation Board's
termination of the union's certification as representative.
STATEMENT
1. The Railway Labor Act (RLA or Act), 45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.,
governs labor relations in the rail and air transportation industries.
Under Section 2 Ninth of the Act, 45 U.S.C. 152 Ninth, the National
Mediation Board (NMB) has the authority to investigate representation
disputes and to certify bargaining representatives for a craft or
class. The NMB's jurisdiction to resolve representation disputes is
exclusive and is not subject to judicial review. Switchmen's Union v.
National Mediation Bd., 320 U.S. 297 (1943).
The RLA creates separate procedures for "minor" disputes --
disputes over the interpretation or application of a collective
bargaining agreement. See Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Railway Labor
Executives' Ass'n, 109 S. Ct. 2477, 2480 (1989). The Act requires
that such disputes be resolved through conferences and compulsory
arbitration. 45 U.S.C. 152 Sixth. In the airline industry, these
disputes are presented to system adjustment boards consisting of
representatives of the union and the carrier. 45 U.S.C. 184. The NMB
does not have power to adjudicate minor disputes. Its involvement is
limited to appointing a neutral referee if a system board deadlocks,
see International Ass'n of Machinists v. Central Airlines, Inc., 372
U.S. 682, 683 (1963), and interpreting the "meaning or the
application" of agreements reached through mediation, if either party
so requests. 45 U.S.C. 155 Second. /1/
2. Respondent Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) was the
certified representative of the flight attendants on Western Airlines,
Inc. As required by the Act, Western's 1984 collective bargaining
agreement with AFA established a System Board of Adjustment to resolve
grievances arising from the interpretation or application of the
agreement. The agreement also included a "successorship" clause
providing: "This agreement shall be binding on any successor or
merged Company or Companies, or any successor in the control of the
Company, its parent(s) or subsidiary(ies) until changed in accordance
with the Railway Labor Act, as amended." Pet. App. 3a.
In September 1986, Western entered into a merger agreement with
Delta Air Lines. Under the agreement, in December 1986, Delta was to
acquire 100% control of Western, and in April 1987, Western was to be
merged into Delta and to cease independent operations. Until the
operational merger, Western would continue to honor its collective
bargaining agreement with AFA. The merger agreement did not purport
to bind Delta to the Western-AFA collective bargaining agreement.
Pet. App. 3a, 28-29a.
3. Before the merger's initial step, AFA filed a grievance against
Western, alleging that Western had breached the successorship
provision by failing to bind Delta to the collective bargaining
agreement. When Western denied the grievance on the grounds that it
raised representation issues within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
NMB, AFA submitted it to the System Board of Adjustment. Western
failed to arbitrate.
After the first step of the merger took place, AFA filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia to compel arbitration. AFA requested expedited arbitration
or, alternatively, the preservation of the status quo pending
arbitration. As relief in the arbitration, AFA sought the
restructuring of the merger so as to bind Delta to the existing
collective bargaining agreement, or, in the event that Western failed
to do so, the payment of damages. Pet. App. 3a-4a, 28a.
The district court dismissed AFA's complaint, holding that it
raised a representation dispute within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the NMB. Pet. App. 27a-33a. The court stated that when
representational issues are intertwined with arguably independent
"minor disputes," courts should not undertake to separate the two,
thereby dividing jurisdiction between the NMB and a system board of
adjustment. Id. at 31a.
4.a. In another action commenced prior to the consummation of the
merger, two other Western unions sued Western in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California to compel
arbitration. Like AFA, these unions alleged that Western had breached
the successorship clauses of their collective agreements. The unions
requested injunctive relief against completion of the merger pending
arbitration. The district court denied relief, but in March 1987 the
Ninth Circuit issued an order compelling arbitration and enjoining the
merger until the arbitration was completed or until the airlines
stipulated that the arbitration would bind the successor corporation.
IBTCWHA, Local Union No. 2707 v. Western Air Lines, Inc. 813 F.2d
1359, 1364 (1987). At the carriers' request, Justice O'Connor stayed
that order pending the filing and disposition of a petition for
certiorari. Western Airlines, Inc. v. International Bhd. of
Teamsters, 480 U.S. 1301 (1987) (O'Connor, J., in chambers).
b. Following the stay of the Ninth Circuit's order, the operational
merger of Delta and Western took place. Delta requested the NMB to
determine whether the certifications of Western's unions were
extinguished as a result of the merger. To answer that question, the
NMB applied the factors bearing on whether the merger had produced a
single transportation system, as set forth in Trans World
Airlines/Ozark Airlines, 14 N.M.B. 218 (1987). /2/ On July 9, 1987,
the NMB ruled that, the merger having eliminated Western as a separate
operating entity, the certifications of the unions at Western were
extinguished as of April 1, 1987. Pet. App. 60a-62a.
c. On October 5, 1987, following the NMB's decision, this Court
granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in the Ninth Circuit
case, vacated the judgment, and remanded for consideration of
mootness. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. International Bhd. of Teamsters,
484 U.S. 806 (1987). On remand, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the
action as moot, stating that "none of the relief sought in the
original complaint is now available." IBTCWHA, Local Union No. 2702 v.
Western Air Lines, Inc., 854 F.2d 1178, 1178 (1988).
5. In an opinion issued after these developments, the court of
appeals in this case reversed the district court's dismissal of AFA's
complaint. The court first held that AFA's damages claim was not moot
because the breach-of-contract allegations -- if proved -- could
support a damages award in arbitration. Pet. App. 7a. /3/ Turning to
Delta's jurisdictional arguments, the court held that arbitration of
AFA's successorship claim was not precluded by the NMB's exclusive
jurisdiction over "representation disputes." The court explained that,
regardless of an arbitrator's decision on AFA's damages claim, the NMB
would still enjoy the exclusive power to certify or decertify a
representative of Delta's employees. The court therefore concluded
that arbitration of AFA's damages claim would not undermine the
exclusive jurisdiction of the NMB. Id. at 13a-18a.
The court also held that an arbitration remedy for damages was not
precluded simply because the arbitration would involve what Delta
characterized as a "representation issue." The court reasoned that to
extend the NMB's authority to cover all "representation issues" would
be inconsistent with the specific functions assigned to the NMB in the
Railway Labor Act, and would conflict with the Act's goal of
encouraging "conciliation, mediation, and arbitration" as the favored
means of resolving labor disputes. Pet. App. 22a (quoting General
Committee of Adjustment v. M.-K.-T. R.R., 320 U.S. 323, 332 (1943)).
Finally, the court dismissed Delta's suggestion that if the NMB
itself lacks power to provide a damages remedy in a case such as this,
then no tribunal can do so and the union is left without a remedy.
Pet. App. 22a-23a. The court found no public policy that justified
rendering successorship provisions "unenforceable and of no effect."
Id. at 22a.
