Free Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cv-02531-JLK

Document 39

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge John L. Kane

Civil Action No. 01-K-2531 GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT GO-245 UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION, Plaintiff, v BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAD..WAY COMPANY, UNITED TRANSPORTAnON UNION, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT GO-OO9, Defendants. ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS Kane,J.
The Railway Labor Act ("RLA" or "Act"), 45 V.S.C. §§ 151-188, governs collective

bargaining agreements formedbetween carriersand railwayemployees "providesa and
comprehensiveframework for the resolution of labor disputes in the railroad industry," including

distinctresolutionprocesses differentcategories railwaylabordisputes.Atchison, Topeka for of & SantaFeRy. Co.v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557,562 (1987). In this action,Plaintiff General
Cotmnittee of Adjustment GO-245 of the United Transportation Union ("GO-245") alleges Defendants violated the Act by entering into an agreementregarding the manner in which certain employeesof Defendant Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company ("BNSF") at the Kansas City Consolidated Yards may exercisetheir seniority. As relief therefore, GO-245 requeststhat I order the parties to presenttheir dispute to the appropriate adjustmentboard as

requiredby the RLA and,if GO-245prevailsbeforethe adjustment board,that I enforcethe adjustment board's decision declaring disputedagreement andvoid asappliedto the by the null

Case 1:01-cv-02531-JLK

Document 39

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 2 of 15

Kansas City Consolidated Y -Jrdsl by issuing a permanentinjunction enjoining Defendants and

from applyingit there.
Defendants have eachmoved to dismissthis action for lack of jurisdiction and 00-245 has moved for partial summaryjudgment to compel Defendants 00-009 to participate in the adjustment of this dispute under the RLA. Having carefully consideredthe parties' arguments, the record and applicable authority, I deny the motions to dismiss and grant 00-245's motion for partial sunnnaryjudgment. I. Background

This actionarisesfro~ a disputebetween PlaintiffGO-245andDefendants BNSF, the
United Transportation Union ("1jJTU"), UTU General Connnittee of Adjustment GO-OO9 ("GO-OO9") and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers ("BLE"). Defendant UTU is the

authorizedcollectivebargaining representative purposes the RLA of variouscrafts or for of
classesofBNSF employees,including brakemen, conductors, foremen and yardmen. UTU has divided responsibility to make and maintain collective bargaining agreementsfor specific

portionsof the BNSF's linesto eleven UTU "GeneralCommittees."PlaintiffGO-245 and
Defendant GO-OO9are two of the General Connnittees to which UTU has delegated authority to represent specified BNSF employeesas further describedbelow. Defendant BLE is the

authorizedcollectivebargaining representative underthe RLA of engineers employedby the BNSF.
The present dispute has its origins in the 1996 merger of the Burlington Northern Railroad ("BN") and the Atchison & Topeka SantaFe Railway ("ATSF"), which resulted in the

of the creation of Defendant BNSFI As a consequence the merger,BNSF consolidated separate
yard operations of its two predecessorrailroads in KansasCity, Missouri to create the 2

Case 1:01-cv-02531-JLK

Document 39

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 3 of 15

Consolidated Kansas City Yards. This action required BNSF to negotiate certain changesto the

collectivebargaining agreements between predecessor its railroadsandUTU, whichwas the
collective bargaining representative for both the former BN and ATSF yardmen in Kansas. UTU participated in these negotiations through the 00-245, as the UTU General Connnittee with

jurisdictionto makeandmaintainagreements UTU-represented for employees who work on certainBNSF linesandyards,includingBN's Kansas City yard operations, 00-009, asthe and
UTU General Committee with jurisdiction to make and maintain agreementsfor UTUrepresented employeeswho work on portions of the fonner ATSF, including the fonner ATSF yard operations in KansasCity. BNSF and UTU, acting through GO-245 and GO-OO9,successfullynegotiated an

Implementing Agreement providedfor the manner which formerBN andA TSF that in employees would be selected assigned the Consolidated and to Kansas City Yards, and a new collectivebargaining agreement, knownasthe Consolidated Yards Schedule Agreement, governingthe ratesof pay, rulesandworking conditionsapplicable all fonner BN andA TSF to
yardmen at the consolidated Kansas City yards. As relevant here, both Agreements specified the manner in which former BN andlATSF yardmen could exercisetheir seniority to obtainjob assignmentsin the consolidated yards.

Article 50 of the Consolidated Yards Schedule Agreement furtherprovidesin relevant part:
[W]ith the signing of this Schedule,both the former Santa Fe UTU General Connnittee of Adjustment (Santa Fe Proper) [00-009] and the former Burlington Northern UTU General Connnittee of Adjustment (CB&Q) [00-245] hold joint jurisdiction in the Consolidated Kansas City Yards and neither may make an agreement,nor a precedentsettlement, nor an agreedunderstanding, which affects the Consolidated Kansas City Yards without the other General Committee's approval. Should there be any arbitration of any minor dispute concerning the
3

Case 1:01-cv-02531-JLK

Document 39

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 4 of 15

interpretation of the agreementsrelative to the Consolidated Kansas City Yards, under the RailwajYLabor Act, or under any other arbitration authority, both General Committees must agreeto such arbitration.

UTU/GO-OO9 Mot. to Dismiss,~x. 3 at 83 (emphasis added). On January1, 2001, defendant BNSFentered into the "Flow-BackAgreement"with
Defendant BLE, representing engine-serviceemployees,and 00-009 and two other UTU General Committees, acting on behalf of ground-service employeeson the former ATSF lines, that governed the manner in which BNSF engineerscan flow back to ground-service positions. The Flow-Back Agreement, among other things, modified existing agreementson the manner in

which BLE-represented engineers exercise can their seniorityto yard andother groundservice positionson portionsof the BN$F previously operated the ATSF. UTU AssistantPaul by
C. Thompson assistedGO-009 and the other two UTU General Committees in negotiating this

agreement.
GO-245 was neither infonned of nor included in the negotiations that resulted in entry of the Flow-Back Agreement. Wh(:n it received a copy of the agreementin March 2001, GO-245 innnediately objected to it on the ground that it "affects" the mannerin which seniority is

exercised the Consolidated at Kansas City Yards andthusrequired00-245's approvalpursuant
to Article 50 of the Consolidated Yards ScheduleAgreement. BNSF and GO-009 disagreed that

Article 50 andits prior approvalirequirement triggeredby the Flow-BackAgreement. was
After meeting with 00-009, BNSF and BLE in an unsuccessfulattempt to resolve their

dispute,00-245 petitionedU~ to find that 00-009 hadviolatedthe UTU Constitutionby enteringinto the Flow-BackAgreement without obtaining00-245's approvalto its application to
the Consolidated Kansas City Yards. When this petition was unsuccessful,00-245 requested that 00-009 agree to submit to the appropriate RLA adjustmentboard the question of whether
4

Case 1:01-cv-02531-JLK

Document 39

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 5 of 15

application of the Flow-Back Agreement to the Consolidated Kansas City Yards without GO245's approval violated Article 50 of the ScheduleAgreement. 00-009 refused. GO-245 responded by filing this action against GO-OO9, UTU, BNSF and BLE alleging

that BNSFviolatedthe RailwayLaborAct by enteringinto the Flow-BackAgreement and changing rules andworking conditionsfor BNSFemployees the represented GO-245without by
first obtaining GO-245's approval as required by Article 50 of the ScheduleAgreement. This claim is premised on GO-245's contention that the Flow-Back Agreement "affects" the Consolidated Kansas City Yards within the meaning of Article 50's prior approval requirement

because grantsBNSF engineers andexpanded it new seniorityrights that adversely affectthe seniorityrights andwork opportunities the fonner BN yardmenat the consolidated of yardswho arerepresented GO-245. GO-245furthermaintains the question Article 50'smeaning by that of
and application in this instance is a "minor dispute" committed by the RLA to the exclusive

jurisdiction of an RLA adjustment boardandasserts GO-009's that refusalto participatein such
proceedings itself violates the RLA.

The Defendants have each movedto dismiss GO-245'scomplainton the commonground that its claimsassert "representational a dispute"that the RLA commitsto the exclusive
jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board ("NMB").1 As a result, each Defendant contends,

this court lacks subjectmatterjurisdictionanddismissal properunderFederalRule of Civil is
Procedure 12(b)(1). In its Motion for Partial Summary Judgmentand For Further Relief, 00245 reiterates that this is not a representationaldispute but rather a "minor dispute" subject to the

1

Defendant BNSF makesthis argument in the alternative to its contention,

consistent with GO-245's position, that this dispute is a minor dispute subject to arbitration before the appropriate RLA adjustmentboard.

5

Case 1:01-cv-02531-JLK

Document 39

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 6 of 15

exclusive jurisdiction of an RLA adjustment board,and seeks partial summary judgment
compelling GO-OO9 participate in arbitration before the appropriate adjustmentboard and to requesting that I hold this casein abeyanceuntil the adjustmentboard hasruled. Each Defendant has also!assertedother grounds for dismissalas describedbelow.

II. Discussion Standard Review of Defendants'assertion this is a representational that disputebeyondthe jurisdiction of this court goesbeyondthe allegations contained the complaint challenges facts upon which in and the
subject matter depends. In such factual attacks on subject matter jurisdiction, the parties may present and I may consider materials outside of the complaint in deciding the motion to dismiss,

without convertingit into a motion for summary judgment. See,e.g.,Stuartv. Colorado
Interstate Gas Co., 271 F.3d 1221, 1225 (10thCir. 2001); Holt v. United States,46 F.3d 1000, 1003 (10thCir. 1995). Although I may resolve any disputedjurisdictional facts that are not intertwined with the merits ofth~ case,see Holt, 46 F.3d at 1003, no such disputed facts exist

here. GO-245,asthe party invokingthe court'sjurisdiction,hasthe burdenof establishing that
subject matter jurisdiction exists. Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906,909 (10thCir. 1974); Fritz v. Colorado, 223 F.]Stipp. 2d 1197,1199 (D. Colo. 2002). 00-245 further has the burden of demonstrating there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law in connection with its motion for partial summaryjudgment. $ee Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Simms v. Oklahoma ex rei. Dep't of Mental Health & SubstanceAbuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir. 1999). As no party has assertedthe existence of any disputed facts material to 00-245's motion, the determinative question with respect to this motion is whether GO-245 is correct that the present dispute is a
6

A.

Case 1:01-cv-02531-JLK

Document 39

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 7 of 15

minor dispute within the jurisdi~ion of the appropriate RLA adjustmentboard and that GO-OO9

canbe compelled participatein arbitrationof the disputebeforethis board. to Nature of the Dispute
The Railway Labor Act identifies three types of labor disputes -major disputes, minor disputes and representational disputes -and provides eachwith a unique dispute resolution procedure. See WesternAirlines, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. afTeamsters, 480 U.S. 1301, 1302-03 (1987); Int'IBhd. afTeamsters v. Texas Int'IAirlines, Inc., 717 F.2d 157,158-59 (5ili Cir. 1983). The

two types of disputes relevant td this caseare "minor" and "representational" disputes. A minor dispute "involv~[ s] the application or interpretation of an existing collective-bargaining agreemenL" WesternAirlines, 480 U.S. at 1302; see Consol. Rail Corp. ("Conrail) v. Ry. Labor Executives'Ass 'n, 491 U.S. 299,303 (1989); Ertle v. Continental

Airlines, Inc., 136 F.3d 690,693 (10dlCir. 1998). These disputes are resolved through

compulsory binding arbitrationbeforethe NationalRailroadAdjustmentBoard or an and adjustment boardestablished the employer the unionrepresenting employees.See by and the
45 U.S.C. § 153 First, Second; Conrail, 491 U.S. at 303-04; Rocky Mountain Airways Maint. Ass 'n v. Rocky Mountain Airways, Inc., 796 F. Supp. 1395, 1396 (D. Colo. 1992). Although

courts lack authorityto interpreta collective-bargaining agreement resolvea minor dispute, and
they may compel arbitration of t\le minor dispute before the appropriate RLA adjustment board. WesternAirlines, 480 U.S. at 1302. A representationdispute under the Act is a disagreementconcerning "the composition of the collective bargaining unit an(!lthe identity of that unit's authorized representative for collective bargaining purposes."I UTUv. GatewayWRy. Co., 78 F.3d 1208, 1213 (7thCir. 1996); see 45 V.S.C. 152 Ninth; WesternAirlines, 480 V.S. at 1302. The RLA vests the National 7

B.

Case 1:01-cv-02531-JLK

Document 39

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 8 of 15

representational disputeis thus subject dismissal lack of subjectmatterjurisdiction. See to for
Gateway, 78 F.3d at 1213; Rocky Mountain Airway:.' Maint. Ass 'n, 796 F. Stipp. at 1396. An intra-union dispute as to which union unit representsa bargaining unit can qualify as a representational dispute. See BLE v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 413 F.2d 19, 24 (5thCir.

Considering this authority and the undisputed facts presentedhere, I find the parties' disagreementregarding the meaning and application of Article 50 of the Consolidated Yards

Scheduling Agreement a minor disputesubject resolutionbeforethe appropriateRLA is to adjustment board. Thereis no disagreement asto which employees variousparties here the represent whetherGO-245represents or partiesinvolvedin the dispute. Although the Defendants times attemptto characterize at GO-245'scomplaint an attemptto establish as itself asa representative fonner AtSF yardmen for and/orengineers the Consolidated at Yards, 00245 has representedto this court that this is not its intent and that its claim is only for

enforcement Article 50'sprior approvalprovisionon behalfofyardrnenon the former BN side of of the consolidated yards,whom all agreeGO-245represents.See,e.g.,PI.'s Replyto
Oppositions to Mot. for Part. Summ J. at 3 (filed May 31,2002).2 Thus, the caseturns on

2

GO-245's asserti
'joint jurisdiction" over the KanSasCity ConsolidatedYards, see PI.'s Opp. to Mots. ofDefs. to Dismiss at 16, eventhough drawn from the languageof Article 50 itself, initially confused this issue as the term can be read as an attempt by GO-245 to assertjurisdiction over all UTUrepresented employees at the consolidatedyards, including former A TSF employeesotherwise represented by GO-009. GO-245 in fact acknowledges it took this position in its internal UTU appeal of GO-009's participation in the Flow-Back Agreement, but reports it is not challenging the UTU Board of Director's denial of this contention in this action. PI.'s Reply to Opps. to Mot.

8

1969).

Case 1:01-cv-02531-JLK

Document 39

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 9 of 15

whether plaintiff correctly assertsthat the Flow-Back Agreement "affects" the Consolidated Kansas City Yards within the meaning of Article 50 of the Consolidated Yards Schedule

Agreement whetherArticle 50 thereforerequireddefendants and BNSF andGO-009to obtain
GO-245's approval before they entered into the Flow-Back Agreement. As such, it is a dispute

involving the interpretation application the Consolidated and of Yards Schedule Agreement,an
existing collective bargaining agreement,which by definition is a minor dispute to be resolved by the appropriate RLA adjustmentboard. See Conrail, 491 U.S. at 303; see also Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs v. Atchison, Topeka& Santa Fe Ry. Co., 768 F.2d 914,919 (7thCir. 1985) (Posner, J.) ("avalanche of cases"hold that "three-cornered" contract disputes regarding working

conditions,e.g. disputesbetween unionswith an employer two sidingwith oneunion, are minor disputes) Defendants argueDivision No. 14 Order ofRailroad Telegraphers Leighty, v.
298 F.2d 17 (4th Cir. 1962), is on point and establishesthat 00-245's claims present a representation dispute. In Leighty, two intermediate "Divisions" in the same union separately

represented telegraphers employed differentrailroads. Whenthe two railroadsmerged,the by
two Divisions could not agree on how to integrate their seniority rosters in a new collective bargaining agreement. [d. at 18. The national union authorized its president to resolve the dispute. [d. When his efforts failed, the president, "acting for the national order," unilaterally

enteredinto a collectivebargaining agreement the railroadthat settledthe seniorityquestion. with

for Part. Sunnn. J. at 3 & n.l. Rather, GO-245 representsto the court that it "is not contending in this litigation that it has a bargainable interest over the impact of [the Flow -Back] Agreement on fonner ATSF trainmen in the Consolidated Kansas City Yards," but rather a contractual right to be consulted on behalf of the fonner BN trainmen that it indisputably represents. Id. (emphasis in original). I expect GO-245 t1 honor this representationbefore the adjustmentboard that decidesthis minor dispute. i 9

Case 1:01-cv-02531-JLK

Document 39

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 10 of 15

Id. One of the Divisionsthensuedthe nationalpresident, arguingthat the agreement and settlement were invalid andshouldbe setasidebecause railroadshouldhavebargained the with
it rather than the parent union. [d. at 19. The Fourth Circuit refused to decide this issue,

however,holding that it was an intra-union representational disputeunderthe exclusive
jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board. Id. In so holding, the Fourth Circuit was careful to note that disputes regarding union

jurisdiction that "dependfor resolutionuponan interpretation existingbargaining of agreements"
are to be decided by the appropriate railroad adjustmentboard. fd. at 20 n.5. As just described, the dispute in this case, evenif characterizedas a jurisdictional dispute between GO-245 and

GO-009,depends resolutionon the interpretation application Article 50 of the for and of collectivebargainingagreement entered into by theseUTU generalcommittees BNSF. and Consequently, Leightysupportsmy conclusion the parties' disputeis a minor disputesubject that
to resolution by an RLA adjustmentboard rather than a representationaldispute to be decided by the NMB. The Leighty decision is further distinguished from this case by the lack of assertion

here that the nationalUTU official who assisted negotiation the Flow-BackAgreement in of was
acting on behalf of the national order or was otherwise authorized to act for 00-245 in these

negotiations.

c.

Other Asserted Bases for Dismissal

UTU and GO-OO9also assertthis court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because GO-

245'scomplaintis an impropercollateralattackon UTU's rejectionofGO-245's internalappeal contendingthat the UTU Constitution requiredits p.lrticipationin negotiationof the Flow-Back Agreement. 00-245 doesnot challenge UTU's resolutionof this appeal here,however,andthe
final decision on this appeal is based,like GO-245's ~u-guments the union, solely on the UTU to
10

Case 1:01-cv-02531-JLK

Document 39

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 11 of 15

Constitution. The UTU decision doesnot purportto interpretthe approvalprovisionof
Article 50 of the Consolidated Yards Scheduling Agreement and in fact does not mention it all.

Accordingly, evenassuming would lackjurisdictionto decidea collateralattackto UTU's I decision, complaintheredoesnot present issue. the that Defendant BLE alsoasserts shouldbe dismissed it from this actionpursuant to Rule l2(b)( 6) because amended the complaint fails to statea claim againstit for which relief may
be granted. To decide BLE's mption I must "assesswhether the plaintiff's complaint alone is

legallysufficientto statea claim for whichrelief maybe granted." Suttonv. Utah StateSch. for
the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10thCir. 1999). In making this assessment, accept all I

well-pleadedallegations the complaintastrue andconstrue of them in the light mostfavorableto Plaintiff. fd. Dismissalis only appropriate it appears if 00-245 couldproveno setof factsin
support of its claim against BLE that would entitle it to relief. fd. BLE is correct that the amendedcomplaint does not allege BLE violated the RLA by

enteringinto the Flow-BackAgreement assertanyother claim against or BLE. 00-245 argues
BLE is nonethelessa necessaryparty to this litigation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a), because the amended complaint seeksto enjoin application of the Flow-Back Agreement to the Kansas

City Consolidated Yards, so that the interests ofBLE, asa partyto that Agreement, be will
affected by this litigation. I agree. As an indispensableparty, BLE is properly a defendant in this action. See id.; Int'IBhd. of Teamsters United States,431 U.S. 324,356 n.43 (1977); EEOCv. v.

MacMillan Bloedel Containers, Inc., 503 F.2d 1086, 1095 (6thCir. 1974).

In response, BLE doesnot disputeit is an inclispensable here,but arguesit should party still be dismissed because relief 00-245 seeksagainst the BLE, a pennanent injunctionbarring it andthe otherpartiesto the Flow-BackAgreement from applyingthe Agreement the Kansas to
11

Case 1:01-cv-02531-JLK

Document 39

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 12 of 15

City Consolidated Yards,is barredby the Supreme Court's decision GeneralBuilding in Contractors Association, Inc. v.iPennsy[vania, U.S. 375 (1982). In that decision, Court 458 the held that the district court exceeded equitable its powerswhenit enteredan injunctionthat
imposed considerableadministrative and financial burdens on a non-liable party. ld. at 398-401 At the sametime, the Court recognized that a non-liable party may be subjected to "minor and ancillary provisions of an injunctive order" if the district court. finds it necessaryto grant complete relief to the plaintiff fd. at 399; see EEOC v. Local 638, 81 F.3d 1162, 1180 (2ndCir. 1996). The Supreme Court further stated as relevant here that "[t]o the extent that the remedy properly imposed upon the [liable defendants]requires any adjustment in the collectivebargaining contract between the I[non-liable party] and the [defendants], it is entirely appropriate

for the District Court to fashion injunctiveremedy so provide,andto havethat remedyrun its to
against [the non-liable party] as well as the [defendants]." Gen. Bldg. Contractors, 458 U.S
at 400.

The latter statement suggests an injunctionadjusting Flow-BackAgreement that the to
bar its application to the Kansas City Consolidated Yards, and imposing this injunction on BLE as well as 00-009 and BNSF, would be "minor and ancillary" and well within this court's

equitable powers Whetherthis preliminaryview is correct,however,is a matterto be determined whenandif GO-245prevailsin its positionbeforethe adjustment boardand seeksan order enforcingthat award. Until this occursand BLE demonstrates the requested that injunction
imposesmore than minor and ancillary burdens on it, there is no basis for dismissing BLE from this action.

12

Case 1:01-cv-02531-JLK

Document 39

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 13 of 15

GO-245'sMotio~ to CompelArbitration andto Stay

RLA adjustment board. Conrail,491 U.S. at 303; Andrews Louisville & NashvilleR.R., v.
406 U.S. 320, 322 (1972). In its motion for partial summaryjudgment, GO-245 seeks an order compelling 00-009 to participate in such arbitration to resolve their and BNSF's minor dispute

regardingthe proper interpretation application Article 50 of the Consolidated and of Yards
ScheduleAgreement. There is no question this court has jurisdiction to compel arbitration of a minor dispute before the appropriate RLA adjustmentboard. See WesternAirlines, 480 U.S. at 1302; Ass 'n of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO v. United Airlines, Inc., 71 F.3d 915, 917 (D.C.

Cir. 1995). GO-245 furtherrequests that I staythis actionpendinga ruling by the adjustment board.
GO-009 does not make any argument againstits compulsory participation in adjustment

boardproceedings otherthanits rejectedcontention this is a representational that dispute properlydirectedto the National MediationBoard. It alsomadeno response GO-245'srequest to
that I retain jurisdiction of this action pending adjustmentboard action in order to enforce the

board's awardif GO-245prevailsthere. BNSF, asa signatory the Consolidated to Yards Schedule Agreement, no objectionto has participatingin arbitrationof this disputebeforean RLA adjustment board,but asserts proper the
course if I find a minor dispute to exist is to dismissGO-245's complaint. No further action in this caseis unnecessary,BNSF argues,becausethe question of GO-OO9's participation in the adjustmentboard proceedings can be decided by a "procedural neutral" under Section 3 Second of the Act, 45 V.S.C. § 153 Second, and GO-245 trulY file a second suit to enforce the arbitration award if needed. GO-245 responds that a judicial order compelling GO-OO9 participate in the to

13

D.

Case 1:01-cv-02531-JLK

Document 39

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 14 of 15

adjustment board proceedings pursuant to its duties under the RLA 3is required here to overcome a provision in the ScheduleAgreement that gives GO-OO9discretion to decline to arbitrate, see

Consolidated Yards Schedule Agreement, Art. 50, and that retainingjurisdictionwould avoid any argument that enforcement the adjustment of boardawardwould be time-barredunderthe Act.
See Pl.'s Mot. for Part. Summ. J. at 20 n.5. To eliminate any question as to GO-OO9's duty to participate in the arbitration of the

disputebetween 00-245 and BNSFregarding meaning application Article 50 to the it, the and of

in this arbitration before the adjustmentboard. I will also stay this action as requested so that any

rights revealedby the adjustment board's contractinterpretation maybe protectedif necessary.
See Order ofRy. Conductors v. Pitney, 326 U.S. 561, 568 (1946) (directing district court to stay dismissal of action involving minor dispute for this purpose).

For the reasons statedabove,I DENY the motionsto dismiss filed by Defendants UTU and GO-009,BNSF and BLE (DocketNos. 8, 10, 13)and GRANT P1aintiffGO-245's motion for
partial summaryjudgment (Docket No. 21). I further ORDER Defendant 00-009 to participate in the appropriate RLA adjustmentboard proceedingto resolve the dispute between it, 00-245 and BNSF regarding the meaning and application of Article 50 of the Consolidated Yards

Schedule.Finally,this actionis STAYED andADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSEDuntil such
time as the adjustmentboard has ruled in this dispute or one or more of the parties shows good

3

The Railway Labor Act imposesa duty on cauiers and their employees"to exert

every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreementsconcerning rates of pay, rules and working conditions, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreementsor otherwise," 45 V.S.C. § 152 First, and requires employeesand cauiers to arbitrate a minor dispute before an RLA adjustmentboard. Id. § 153 First (i). 14

Case 1:01-cv-02531-JLK

Document 39

Filed 06/28/2005

Page 15 of 15

causethat this actionshouldbe reopened.Thepartiesshallpromptly infonn this court whenthe
adjustment board issuesits decision

IT IS SO ORDERED. Datedthis );J,ay of June, 2005.

15