usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,882
- Reaction score
- 57
A reversal will not happen. American Airlines found out with the CWA and the customer service employee's in 2012/2013 when trying to fight a NMB decision and the RLA.
See Case: 12-10-10680 final decision (10-03-2012) and Case: 4:12-cv-00276-Y opinions vacated. (pdf attached)
"Judicial review of NMB decisions pursuant to the exception carved out by the Supreme Court in Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 (1958) is only appropriate where there is a "plain" violation of an unambiguous and mandatory provision of the statute," or in other words, where the NMB has committed "egregious error".
See NMB arguments Case 12-10-10680 (07/10/2012) (pdf attached)
"The RLA was enacted to ensure "the prompt and orderly settlement of" labor-management disputes in the railroad and airline industries, see 45 U.S.C. 151A. Thus, courts have not applied "conventional principles of judicial review" to the Board's decision under the RLA. See, e.g., Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. v. NMB, 956 F.2d 1245, 1250 (2d Cir. 1999) (refusing to apply the Administrative Procedure Act). As the Supreme Court has emphasized, the congressional "intent seems plain - the dispute was to reach its last terminal point when the administrative finding was made. There was to be no dragging out of the controversy into other tribunals of law." (recognizing "statutory command to attain a prompt and orderly settlement of labor disputes"). Thus, speed is an "RLA objective of the first order." The RLA "puts a premium on speed of resolution," and is intended to prevent representation disputes from being dragged out. "
"1. In keeping with the statutory "premium on speed of resolution," for more than sixty years it has been well-settled doctrine that actions taken by the Board in representation disputes under the RLA are generally unreviewable. In Switchmen's Union, the Supreme Court held that, under the RLA, Congress entrusted the responsibility for protecting the collective bargaining rights of employees exclusively to the Board, not the courts. Accordingly, the Court declared that the Board's determinations in representation disputes were unreviewable "whether the (alleged) error be one of fact or law," The supreme Court confirmed this doctrine"
"Consistent with Switchmen's Union, the courts have universally agreed that the details and procedures of representational disputes are committed solely to the Board's discretion. Indeed, judicial review under the RLA is "one of the narrowest known to law. IAM v. TWA, 839 F.2d 809, 811 (D.C. Cir. 1988) amended, 848 F.2d 232 (D.C. Cir 1988). Judicial review of the Board's decision may be available only where the plaintiff has established, on the face of the pleadings, that the decision involved "patent official bad faith"; violated the constitutional rights of the employer, employee, of the union; or was a "gross violation" of the RLA. A "gross violation" of the RLA occurs only in the NMB's action are "in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the act,""
Of course some will argue this is a single carrier determination and not a representation dispute yet.
We will see.
See Case: 12-10-10680 final decision (10-03-2012) and Case: 4:12-cv-00276-Y opinions vacated. (pdf attached)
"Judicial review of NMB decisions pursuant to the exception carved out by the Supreme Court in Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 184 (1958) is only appropriate where there is a "plain" violation of an unambiguous and mandatory provision of the statute," or in other words, where the NMB has committed "egregious error".
See NMB arguments Case 12-10-10680 (07/10/2012) (pdf attached)
"The RLA was enacted to ensure "the prompt and orderly settlement of" labor-management disputes in the railroad and airline industries, see 45 U.S.C. 151A. Thus, courts have not applied "conventional principles of judicial review" to the Board's decision under the RLA. See, e.g., Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. v. NMB, 956 F.2d 1245, 1250 (2d Cir. 1999) (refusing to apply the Administrative Procedure Act). As the Supreme Court has emphasized, the congressional "intent seems plain - the dispute was to reach its last terminal point when the administrative finding was made. There was to be no dragging out of the controversy into other tribunals of law." (recognizing "statutory command to attain a prompt and orderly settlement of labor disputes"). Thus, speed is an "RLA objective of the first order." The RLA "puts a premium on speed of resolution," and is intended to prevent representation disputes from being dragged out. "
"1. In keeping with the statutory "premium on speed of resolution," for more than sixty years it has been well-settled doctrine that actions taken by the Board in representation disputes under the RLA are generally unreviewable. In Switchmen's Union, the Supreme Court held that, under the RLA, Congress entrusted the responsibility for protecting the collective bargaining rights of employees exclusively to the Board, not the courts. Accordingly, the Court declared that the Board's determinations in representation disputes were unreviewable "whether the (alleged) error be one of fact or law," The supreme Court confirmed this doctrine"
"Consistent with Switchmen's Union, the courts have universally agreed that the details and procedures of representational disputes are committed solely to the Board's discretion. Indeed, judicial review under the RLA is "one of the narrowest known to law. IAM v. TWA, 839 F.2d 809, 811 (D.C. Cir. 1988) amended, 848 F.2d 232 (D.C. Cir 1988). Judicial review of the Board's decision may be available only where the plaintiff has established, on the face of the pleadings, that the decision involved "patent official bad faith"; violated the constitutional rights of the employer, employee, of the union; or was a "gross violation" of the RLA. A "gross violation" of the RLA occurs only in the NMB's action are "in excess of its delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the act,""
Of course some will argue this is a single carrier determination and not a representation dispute yet.
We will see.
