Hopeful
Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
The following is a section of Chapter 11, 1113 covering the abrrogation of CBA's for both RLA and non-rla unions. Full text is at http://www.abiworld.org/committees/newsletters/employeebenefits/vol6num2/section.pdf
(a) Airline (RLA) CBA Rejection
The Railway Labor Act "abhors a contractual vacuum," and a CBA governed by the RLA
therefore does not terminate upon expiration; instead, it continues in effect and becomes
amendable. In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 483 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Air Line
Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. UAL Corp., 897 F.2d 1394, 1398 (7th Cir. 1990)). Once a CBA becomes
amendable, the RLA requires the employer and the affected union to abide by a detailed
negotiation and dispute resolution process designed to avoid strikes. See Detroit & Toledo Shore
Line R.R. Co. v. United Transp. Union, 396 U.S. 142, 150 (1969) (observing that the status quo
provision "prevent the union from striking and management from doing anything that would
justify a strike"). During this period, the airline and the union are obligated to maintain the terms
of employment in effect under the CBA, which courts have termed the "status quo" requirement
of the RLA. An airline that unilaterally modifies the terms of employment during the tenure of a
CBA or during the amendable period has violated the RLA and is subject to a strike by the
affected workers.
Rejection of a CBA under § 1113 overlays a serious wrinkle onto the status quo
requirements of the RLA, however: if rejection constitutes a complete abrogation, and not a
breach, of the CBA, there is no status quo to maintain. Without a status quo, an employer that
unilaterally imposes new terms post-rejection does not violate the RLA, and employees typically
590
28th Annual Spring Meeting
-22-
may not strike. In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 483 F.3d 160, 173 (2d Cir. 2007) ("The plain
text of [the status quo provisions] compels the conclusion that they do not apply after a carrier
has abrogated its CBA and the 'agreement' has ceased to exist."). Although the CBA itself no
longer exists, however, the airline does not cease to be governed by the RLA. The parties remain
bound by the duty to "'exert every reasonable effort' to make a new contract that would effect a
new status quo." In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 483 F.3d 160, 174-75 (2d Cir. 2007). This
essentially sends the parties back to the negotiating table, and the union may not immediately
strike following a § 1113 rejection absent some display of bad faith by the carrier. Id. at 175.
Before the union may strike, it must more fully exhaust the dispute resolution machinery of the
RLA, presumably by continuing to bargain with the airline and seeking the assistance of the
National Mediation Board if necessary. Id. at 175-76.
(a) Airline (RLA) CBA Rejection
The Railway Labor Act "abhors a contractual vacuum," and a CBA governed by the RLA
therefore does not terminate upon expiration; instead, it continues in effect and becomes
amendable. In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 483 F.3d 160, 167 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Air Line
Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. UAL Corp., 897 F.2d 1394, 1398 (7th Cir. 1990)). Once a CBA becomes
amendable, the RLA requires the employer and the affected union to abide by a detailed
negotiation and dispute resolution process designed to avoid strikes. See Detroit & Toledo Shore
Line R.R. Co. v. United Transp. Union, 396 U.S. 142, 150 (1969) (observing that the status quo
provision "prevent
justify a strike"). During this period, the airline and the union are obligated to maintain the terms
of employment in effect under the CBA, which courts have termed the "status quo" requirement
of the RLA. An airline that unilaterally modifies the terms of employment during the tenure of a
CBA or during the amendable period has violated the RLA and is subject to a strike by the
affected workers.
Rejection of a CBA under § 1113 overlays a serious wrinkle onto the status quo
requirements of the RLA, however: if rejection constitutes a complete abrogation, and not a
breach, of the CBA, there is no status quo to maintain. Without a status quo, an employer that
unilaterally imposes new terms post-rejection does not violate the RLA, and employees typically
590
28th Annual Spring Meeting
-22-
may not strike. In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 483 F.3d 160, 173 (2d Cir. 2007) ("The plain
text of [the status quo provisions] compels the conclusion that they do not apply after a carrier
has abrogated its CBA and the 'agreement' has ceased to exist."). Although the CBA itself no
longer exists, however, the airline does not cease to be governed by the RLA. The parties remain
bound by the duty to "'exert every reasonable effort' to make a new contract that would effect a
new status quo." In re Northwest Airlines Corp., 483 F.3d 160, 174-75 (2d Cir. 2007). This
essentially sends the parties back to the negotiating table, and the union may not immediately
strike following a § 1113 rejection absent some display of bad faith by the carrier. Id. at 175.
Before the union may strike, it must more fully exhaust the dispute resolution machinery of the
RLA, presumably by continuing to bargain with the airline and seeking the assistance of the
National Mediation Board if necessary. Id. at 175-76.