Click the maroon box above for a formatted PDF of the decision.
functioning of the statutory scheme requires the court to substitute its collective agreement, e.g., claims on account of personal injuries. in or minor dispute. reserves the dispute in this case to the adjustment board in the first instance, thus court. district court action. once the stb stated it had no jurisdiction, the brief), sutin, thayer & browne, p.c., albuquerque, new mexico, for appellee because the dispute is minor, it is subject to mandatory arbitration. the we similarly dispose of the rail workers' second argument. they contend conrail, 491 u.s. at 302 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). thus, "major 108113.6 entered into several agreements to purchase a portion of a rail line from bnsf. agreement controls the controversy. they look to the acquisition of the district court dismissed the action, concluding it lacked jurisdiction classifying disputes as minor under collective bargaining agreements. see, e.g., regulatory proceedings. new mexico initially filed notice of the proposed transaction and no agency action was therefore necessary. the stb agreed and labor act, 38993 (2d ed. 2005). section 2, seventh of the rla, 45 u.s.c. 152, seventh, provides, "no change in working conditions without prior negotiation, and if that be entitled to show that bnsf retained control over maintenance obligations on dispatching the commuter operations on the lines, while sound transit became board through binding arbitration. to determine which forum is appropriate in proceedings. the rail workers contend bnsf breached the "scope of work" may not, under the cba, assign or contract that work to anyone other than union however, have prior approval authority over a transaction where no common mexico department of transportation. new mexico sought to obtain the rail line reservation to the employer of the right to act unilaterally." the railway labor before the adjustment board is mandatory. this appeal requires us to determine procedures for the negotiation, enforcement, and modification of collective over the claims. it held the rla vests exclusive jurisdiction over the workers' (jua). specifically, the jua provided that new mexico "will be responsible for case. c. the dispute here is minor obligations ordinarily requires prior stb approval, even if the acquiring entity is in such agreements or in 6 of [the rla]." pursuant to 6, 45 u.s.c. 156, id. the adjustment board found the carrier was not aware of the work, and the and we therefore affirm its order. bnsf's explanation for its actions. the adjustment board will ultimately -13- previously performed the maintenance work sued. they contended the easement on the lines. new mexico would also take over maintenance administrative process before the adjustment board. statutory provisions. bnsf and new mexico structured the transaction to responsibilities of the right-of-way, an obligation previously belonging to bnsf. adjustment board has neither the jurisdiction nor the expertise to examine those existing agreement either establish or refute the presence of a right to take the regulations on rail carriers. rla the national railroad adjustment board governed the dispute. accordingly, signalmen, plaintiff alleges that its members have the contractual right to rights and obligations of a freight common carrier under the ica. they arise "out of the interpretation or application of" existing collective conclusion that bnsf's position is "arguably justified" by the cba. cf. air line way of saying that the dispute does not involve rights that exist independent of rla disputes can be resolved either in federal court or in the adjustment as part of a plan to provide commuter rail service between albuquerque, santa fe, app. at 34041. this lucid reasoning explains the centrality of the cba to this md. ry. co. v. csx r.r. corp., 893 f.2d 584, 592 (3d. cir. 1990) (noting "several employees. the workers maintained that by relinquishing the work to new first of all, the workers are correct that the adjustment board must owned facilities to general motors, which then contracted the maintenance and is persuasive. the ica subjects common carriers to the jurisdiction of the surface -7- the act against unilateral imposition of new contractual terms." id. at 306 ii. analysis first is 45 u.s.c. 152, seventh (" 2, seventh"). under this provision, no contractual basis for its claim is insincere in so doing, or its position [is] founded when it is "arguably justified" by the express and implied terms of the collective conditions of its employees, as a class, as embodied in agreements except in the bhd. of maint. of way employes div./ibt v. union pac. r.r. co., 460 f.3d 1277, carrier rights or obligations are being transferred. maine, 8 i.c.c. 2d at 83637; cba. instead, it falls comfortably under conrail's default category of minor disputes seek to create contractual rights." id. of reviewing whether bnsf actually divested itself of maintenance obligations, or ("a dispute is considered minor whenever the challenged conduct is `arguably -21- app. at 102. the adjustment board ruled in the carrier's favor, noting "the work determine whether bnsf actually transferred the maintenance obligations to new adjustment board does not have jurisdiction to review the ica, the stb's or frivolous, nor made in bad faith), the employer may make the amendments or side letters, and (7) unsuccessful attempts to "obtain through -16- the responsibility to maintain the lines--reducing union maintenance bnsf also points out the cba grants bnsf the unilateral right to abolish rail lines to new mexico. rights. conrail, 491 u.s. at 302. parties' agreement ( i.e., the claim is neither obviously insubstantial bnsf's operation, the maintenance work no longer belonged to union employees. reviewing the cba's reservation of work against these facts is a matter well eng'rs div. 269 v. long island r.r., 85 f.3d 35, 38 (2d cir. 1996), where the maintain the property. app. at 9798.5 . . . subject to the board's jurisdiction." app. at 15152. at 265. they have no claims that exist independent of it. that the adjustment categorizing disputes. given the above conclusion, we need not address the sovereign immunity central issue, and that when the carrier does not have control over the work minor dispute, even though the railroad's argument that the agreement permitted company's proportionate share of maintenance costs for the portions of the rail properties support bnsf's position. app. at 99113. for example, bnsf points the rla provides little guidance regarding how to determine whether a collective bargaining agreement or even new terms or rights under the existing i. background -17- practices of the parties."); bhd. of ry. & steamship clerks v. atchison, topeka & have laid out a framework for answering this question. see cons. rail corp. v. district court properly characterized this case as a minor dispute. as the district burden" under conrail. 491 u.s. at 307. prohibit unilateral changes in the pay rates, rules, or working conditions already 1282 (10th cir. 2006). we agree with the district court that it lacked subject lessee was free to contract out maintenance to whomever it chose. id. the rights or obligations and . . . [new mexico] would not hold itself out as a elisabeth a. shumaker set forth in collective bargaining agreements.2 brotherhood of railroad decisions interpreting similar language in other bargaining agreements, (3) the that bnsf is obligated to continue using its employees to maintain lines bnsf matter jurisdiction because the rla reserves cases such as this for binding (quoting union r.r. co. v. united steelworkers of am., 242 f.3d 458, 463 (3d david m. pryor, bnsf railway company, fort worth, texas (donald j. munro, classes of controversy." id. it bears repeating: performed, because it either leased or sold the property, the carrier no longer has the rla sets forth two provisions relevant to the workers' claims. the violation of 2, seventh assumes a violation of an already existing agreement. collective bargaining by railroads and their employees in order to prevent, if by the state would constitute illegal subcontracting, it can order district court correctly determined arbitration is the proper venue for this dispute, the meaning or proper application of a particular provision with negotiation, and if that claim is arguably justified by the terms of the classification. we again disagree. reference to a specific situation or to an omitted case. in the latter clause of the agreement between the union and railroad, and, therefore, this was a consider several issues, including an interpretation of the line-transfer documents of the cba even if it retains residual rights under the easement. that as long as bnsf has the obligation to provide maintenance to the rail line, it jobs--despite retaining a freight easement and common carrier obligations. the management and maintenance of the rail corridor, subject to bnsf's in the past. goodwin proctor llp, washington, district of columbia, and john r. conney the line, has a nondelegable obligation to maintain its right-of-way, (2) a and other points within the state. under the terms of sale, new mexico would between major disputes and minor disputes by adding a third rights. the ultimate question is whether the alleged contracting of maintenance -19- pending appeal is denied without prejudice. whether these previous transactions bear on the interpretation of the lenient standards the supreme court has set forth, a dispute qualifies as minor subject to the stb's prior approval. see 49 u.s.c. 10901. in particular, the e.g., 45 u.s.c. 153 first (i) (rla applies to disputes arising from "the app. at 89. bnsf also points to transactions where it has retained a freight change in terms or to create a new one. the dispute relates either to r.r. co., 460 f.3d 1277, 1282 (10th cir. 2006) (explaining minor disputes disputes as minor." bhd. of locomotive eng'rs v. atchison, topeka & s. f. ry. transaction, and bnsf's obligations under the ica. the rail workers argue the fact that the only source of their right to work is the cba. see norris, 512 u.s. plaintiffs-appellants, mexico, and the jua vested maintenance responsibility in the new owner.3 they arguably justify classifying the dispute as arising out of the cba. workers insist this creates a "hybrid" category that fits outside the minor court rejected a claim that the "conclusively resolved" language from conrail or 491 u.s. at 30405, 307, 310. the supreme court declared, agreement between bnsf and the rail workers (cba) in assigning the absence of a term prohibiting the carrier's action, (4) industry practice, (5) the this is the very essence of a minor dispute over which this court has 1 fe railway company, and in sum, the dispute here meets conrail's "arguably justified" standard. dispute under the rla. 2, seventh by improperly contracting the maintenance responsibilities on the of rail management and rail labor, as a shorthand method of describing two where there is no such agreement or where it is sought to change the "relate[ ] either to the meaning or proper application of a particular provision" of bargaining agreements between railroad carriers and labor unions." id. at 678 as an initial matter, the rla is clear no line exists between disputes that ceded its maintenance obligations.4 the dispute concerns the application of the cba, and not its interpretation. the -18- category of hybrid disputes. we hold that if an employer asserts a at 33. according to the rail workers, before we can decide whether bnsf obligations to new mexico violated the existing cba, which requires union even applies. without citing any legal authority, the rail workers argue the terms of the sale between bnsf and the state and finds that bnsf terms of one, and therefore the issue is not whether an existing category. the major/minor framework is drawn from the traditional "vocabulary perform the maintenance work at issue. bnsf contends that the cba." norris, 512 u.s. at 265. the essence of the inquiry is whether the first, the cba supports bnsf's position. the cba places no restrictions work as it saw fit. id. other decisions have similarly held that control is the easement and common carrier obligations, without retaining any obligation to physical assets of the rail line. the rail workers claim the adjustment board will resolving labor disputes under collective bargaining agreements. hawaiian disputes in which a party seeks to enforce a collective bargaining agreement. id. at 106. the facilities were under gm's control, and gm could contract the minor disputes can be a matter of artful pleading. conrail, 491 u.s. at 305. discerning the essence of the dispute. union, 396 u.s. 142, 148 (1969)). "to this end, the rla establishes elaborate mexico, bnsf violated the terms of the cba, as well as rla provisions that march 2, 2010 proceedings since it would not become a common carrier as a result of the characterization would be to undercut the prohibitions of 2, seventh, and 6 of we hold that if an employer asserts a claim that the parties' -3- in this case, there is no contention bnsf's defenses are frivolous or fin. no. 35128, 2008 wl 4718447, at *2 (stb oct. 23, 2008). merely interpreting the cba and qualifies as a major dispute. we disagree. id. (citation omitted) (emphasis added). cba is a question for the adjustment board. for our purposes, it is enough that board. board that the circumstances surrounding previous arbitration awards are distinct. bargaining agreements. id. at 303 (quoting 45 u.s.c. 153 first (i)). such case. we agree with the district court. as explained below, we find the rla while none of the above factors is dispositive, they all arguably justify carrier "shall change the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions of its for the district of new mexico must defer to the arbitral jurisdiction of the board. board will have to consider issues related to both the interpretation of the cba claims in the national railroad adjustment board, which has yet to review the agreements, sound transit entered into a joint use agreement with bnsf under brotherhood of as part of the transaction, bnsf reserved an exclusive freight easement (1) arbitration decisions interpreting the bargaining agreement, (2) arbitration claim is arguably justified by the terms of the parties' agreement "arguably justified" by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. conrail, will look to documents, cases, statutes, and past practices outside the four corners -22- the transaction. as part of a project to expand public commuter rail -2- -8- depriving the district court of jurisdiction. the workers' remedy lies in the bnsf breached the cba. the first instance, the supreme court has created a two-part classification system: their main contention--that bnsf violated the cba and thus the rla--without 7 no jurisdiction. if a board of adjustment arbitrator examines the the rail workers will the loss of union positions as minor under the rla"). union, the adjustment board concluded, failed to show that the work belonged to bnsf transferred the maintenance obligations to new mexico when it sold the mexico when bnsf transferred the physical railroad line.7 sufficient evidence of past practice to render the dispute minor). the record retained the maintenance obligations, they contend the cba obligates the reduction of maintenance obligations along the transferred track is not a violation to an adjustment board decision in which the union claimed the carrier -14- event the claim is founded upon some incident of the employment transportation board (stb), which imposes a comprehensive scheme of decision, or the sales documents in answering the threshold question, and that justified' either by the text and negotiating history of the cba or by the past questions involving a district court's subject matter jurisdiction de novo. see under the cba and in light of the relevant factors that guide our inquiry, bnsf norris created a "new, more demanding standard" for classifying minor disputes. arise from their interpretation. in fact, the rla applies plainly to collective second, "practice, usage and custom," conrail, 491 u.s. at 311, support the retained enough control over the right-of-way such that maintenance bnsf's view of the cba is sufficiently reasonable to meet its "relatively light ensure new mexico would not acquire any obligation to provide freight common but the adjustment board ruled that because the facility was no longer part of bnsf to pay plaintiff's claims until such time as plaintiff is no "[t]here is a danger in leaving the characterization of the dispute solely in the -9- united states court of appeals in an effort to prevent new mexico from assuming the maintenance source of a party's asserted legal right is its collective bargaining agreement. the rail workers' arguments fail because they cannot rebut the undisputed nonunion employees of a wholly owned subsidiary to maintain locomotives used disputes contemplate of course, to both the express and implied provisions of the collective bargaining sheet metal workers' int'l. ass'n v. burlington n. r.r. co., 893 f.2d 199, was done at the direction of the lessee who initiated and completed the work." carrier service under the interstate commerce act (ica), 49 u.s.c. 101 et seq. cir. 2001)). change and the courts must defer to the arbitral jurisdiction of the -4- a dispute as minor if it even remotely touches on the terms of the relevant including but not limited to, the construction, maintenance, repair, replacement shows, for example, that bnsf has previously sold properties to third parties and either case the claim is to rights accrued, not merely to have new whether the line-sale transaction was a subterfuge to evade the requirements of company to use union employees for any maintenance work. to contract formation and arise bargaining agreement. as we explain below, the district court correctly the existence of a collective agreement already concluded or, at any see cent. puget sound, 2005 wl 3090144, at *12 (nov. 18, 2005) the supreme court has stressed that the relative importance of a case does whether bnsf violated the cba. and the adjustment board is perfectly capable work to new mexico, and (3) an injunction reforming the current transaction and dismissed the agency proceeding, declaring the "transaction does not require service to all existing and new customers and retained responsibility for make a particular change in working conditions without prior the supreme court has emphasized the primary importance of labor established that the parties' `practice, usage and custom' is of significance in at 305. rather, we look to "whether a claim has been made that the terms of an a. legal framework for resolving rla disputes john o'b. clarke, jr., highsaw, mahoney & clarke, p.c., washington, district of puget sound reg'l transit auth.--acquisition exemption--bnsf ry. co., fin. the rla provides a comprehensive and mandatory framework for under the proposed agreements, bnsf would transfer fee simple ownership in the should be resolved in federal court. if a dispute is "minor," binding arbitration that the adjustment board will not interpret the terms of the cba, a necessity for collective bargaining agreement between the workers and bnsf. publish completely resolve plaintiff's rla claim. and earl e. debrine, jr., modrall sperling roehl harris & sisk, p.a., did not in fact transfer the maintenance obligations to new mexico; rather, the even if the text of the rla were not clear enough, conrail and subsequent rail company simply contracted that work to the state. the rail workers argue by the railroad to generate electricity could arguably be resolved by the scope appeal from the united states district court 6 transaction with the stb. later, the state sought dismissal of the agency arguably had the authority to sell the rail lines at issue and to include in that sale tenth circuit dispute is major or minor, but a series of well-established supreme court cases on appeal, the rail workers argue the district court erred in concluding the bargaining agreement application claims as well as interpretation claims. see, to some extent, courts acknowledge that the distinction between major and (dismissing a notice of exemption because bnsf was not transferring common ry. labor executives' ass'n, 491 u.s. 299 (1989) ("conrail"); norris, 512 u.s. declaratory judgment that bnsf, as the sole common carrier entity operating on right-of-way to public agencies in california, retained an exclusive freight retained freight easement." app. at 22526.1 "arguably justified by the implied terms of its collective-bargaining agreement"). courts have been consistent in applying the "arguably justified" standard in filed with these principles in mind, we turn to the claims in this case. under the and applying the cba to disputed facts, and because it has authority to do so, the construction work out to a third party. app. at 104. the union argued the v. no. 08-2232 agreements." norris, 512 u.s. at 252 (quotations omitted). these disputes relate the workers here, of course, will be free to argue before the adjustment the obligation to perform the maintenance and to use union employees. app. at relation, or asserted one, independent of those covered by the rla. conrail, 491 u.s. at 307. agreement gives the employer the discretion to make a particular a minor dispute, but will first answer the threshold question of whether the cba the rail workers argue that because the adjustment board cannot resolve exemption--maine cent. r.r. co., 8 i.c.c. 2d 835, 83637 (1991); see also cent. -20- common carrier. . . . under these circumstances, [new mexico] would not become our position is consistent with the second circuit in bhd. locomotive of equal importance is the parties' "practice, usage and custom" in negotiating -5- ones created for the future. bargaining rights the carrier later contended it possessed." aba, the railway cir. 2008) (quoting detroit & toledo shore line r.r. co. v. united transp. (quotations and citations omitted). in such a situation, "protection of the proper adjustment board has exclusive jurisdiction over their claims. we review legal * * * maintenance responsibility to new mexico. the rail workers contended bnsf minor dispute can be `conclusively resolved' by interpreting the cba is another conrail and instead adopted an analysis that channels most cases into the minor as relevant here, the ica provides that the sale of active rail lines is responsible for maintenance activities). whether either party's claim is "arguably justified." we look first and primarily, clerk of court minor dispute is one in which a party seeks to enforce preexisting contractual responsibilities, two union organizations representing rail workers who had line used by both parties. new mexico would also inspect and maintain sidings, no matter the complexity with which the rail workers state their claim, this use union employees. if, on the other hand, the rail workers show that bnsf if bnsf did transfer the maintenance obligations, then the company no issues concerning the secretary. appellants' renewed motion for an injunction even if it did, it is not equipped to do so. intent behind and nature of the actions giving rise to the dispute, (6) any relevant possible, wasteful strikes and interruptions of interstate commerce." united maintenance of way claim that the parties' agreement gives the employer the discretion to over the tracks. the easement, among other things, "reserve[d] for [bnsf] and determined the contested action in this case--bnsf's contracting maintenance employes division, provisions contained in its collective bargaining agreement and thereby violated (...continued) pilots ass'n, int'l. v. guilford transp. indus. inc., 399 f.3d 89, 93 (1st cir. 2005) 4 -6- in conclusion, this is not a case involving the unilateral creation of a new and, if arbitration is requested, maintain the status quo ante during the of work provision. the rail workers make two arguments to avoid this conclusion, but neither columbia, for appellants bmwed and brs. characterization for that of the claimant." id. burden" in establishing exclusive jurisdiction in the adjustment board under the acquisition of an active rail line and the corresponding transfer of common carrier (bnsf) proposed sale of approximately 290 miles of bnsf's rail line to the new the cba.8 suited for arbitration proceedings before the adjustment board. which bnsf retained the exclusive common carrier obligation to provide freight its successors and assigns an exclusive easement for freight railroad purposes, accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the complaint. id. at 310 (emphasis added). easement over the lines, but was no longer responsible for maintaining the track. declaratory judgment that bnsf violated the rla by contracting the maintenance of the document to do that. in the end, the adjustment board must still determine (d.c. no. civ-06-245-jch) secretary-designee, new mexico not presently a common carrier. see dept. of transp.--acquisition and operation see also port of seattle--acquisition exemption--certain assets of bnsf ry. co., agreement. conrail, 491 u.s. at 320 (holding a dispute was minor because it was in support of its flexibility under the cba's scope of work provisions, carrier obligations to sound transit when, along with the purchase and sale to create contractual rights, minor disputes seek to enforce them. id. at base, a workers aver that, with the additional threshold analysis, the case moves beyond other non-exclusive factors arising from cases applying conrail include court explained, arbitration under the rla. to that end, the default position for courts is to deem no. 34747, 2005 wl 3090144, at *2 (stb nov. 18, 2005). the stb does not, airlines, inc. v. norris, 512 u.s. 246, 252 (1994). it aims "to encourage department of transportation, the district court dismissed the complaint with the understanding the dispute -15- interpreting their agreement."). burlington northern santa b. major and minor disputes district court, arguing that bnsf violated the rla and the collective bargaining third party, and has plausible contractual justifications for its actions. longer being harmed by bnsf's contract violation. this would segments. app. at 229. preventing any future transactions violative of the rla. (continued...) has sold but over which it retains a freight easement and common carrier [w]e shall not aggravate the already difficult task of distinguishing carrier, its officers, or agents shall change the rates of pay, rules, or working id. the supreme court's cautioning instruction in conrail retains its vitality. improperly subcontracted repair work after leasing facilities to a local industry. if a dispute is "major," it is not subject to adjustment board arbitration and be conclusively resolved by interpreting the existing agreement." id. to say "a rights for the future, not to assertion of rights claimed to have vested whether the disagreement between the rail workers and bnsf qualifies as a major secretary-designee gary giron. physical assets of the rail lines to the state. interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or transaction was free to move forward. the rail workers then filed suit in federal albuquerque, new mexico, with him on the brief), for appellee bnsf railway carriers must give notice of major changes to pay, rules, or working conditions 8 disputed action. the distinguishing feature of such a case is that the dispute may d. the rail workers' arguments -11- at 25257. "major disputes relate to the formation of collective [bargaining] the rail workers sought (1) a employees, as a class, as embodied in agreements except in the manner prescribed arbitration before the adjustment board. responsibilities to new mexico--was "arguably justified" under the cba's scope 6 before tacha, tymkovich, and gorsuch, circuit judges. defendants-appellees. finally, our conclusion accords with the decisions of other federal courts not determine whether it qualifies as a major or minor dispute. conrail, 491 u.s. (i.e., the claim is neither obviously insubstantial or frivolous, nor to meet this burden, a party need only show that the contested action is international brotherhood and its application does not change this fact. naturally, the adjustment board the first argument is that the rla requires a "two-step inquiry." aplt. br. is fundamentally a case concerning the enforcement of preexisting contractual transp. union v. burlington n. santa fe r.r. co., 528 f.3d 674, 677678 (9th plaintiff's members have no right to perform work on track sold to a in contrast, "minor disputes" seek to "enforce [contractual rights]." id. district court agreed, concluding it did not have jurisdiction and that under the breached the cba, we must first resolve a threshold issue; namely, whether other courts have also categorized disputes involving rail line sales that caused tymkovich, circuit judge. spurs, or industrial tracks not used for commuter service on the relevant manner prescribed in such agreements or in section 156 of this title." thus, any -12- co., 768 f.2d 914, 920 (7th cir. 1985). indeed, a party bears a "relatively light rate, a situation in which no effort is made to bring about a formal company, and gail gottlieb (mark chaiken and kerry kiernan with her on the insincere, nor does the rail workers' pleading or bnsf's response prevent us from the jua also provided that new mexico would charge bnsf for the rail obtain ownership of bnsf's rail lines, but reserve to bnsf a concurrent freight obligations. that the cba's scope of work provisions obligate bnsf to assign right to take or to resist the action in question." id. where the party "asserting a 2 provides requisite notice to the unions. this bolsters bnsf's claim that a arise from the application of collective bargaining agreements and those that 3 made in bad faith), the employer may make the change and the courts would be subject to binding arbitration proceedings before the adjustment board. -10- upon . . . insubstantial grounds, the result of honoring that party's 5 the freight easement. to resolve that question, the adjustment board will have to supreme court, in fact, rejected a variation of the rail workers' argument in iii. conclusion its members. id. in another decision with similar facts, bnsf leased railroad- gary giron, in his capacity as service in central new mexico, the new mexico department of transportation act, supra at 395. the tracks here were transferred in fee simple to new board authorization" because "bnsf would not be transferring common carrier third, several arbitration decisions involving leased or sold railroad hands of one party" when it "chooses whether to assert an existing contractual and operating under applicable labor agreements. id. at 311 ("[i]t is well we will not create a new category of dispute absent further guidance from the longer has any duty to perform the maintenance and thus no cba obligation to the court has identified a number of factors to consider in determining because the adjustment board will be doing nothing more than interpreting bnsf and new mexico moved to dismiss the workers' complaint. the cases routinely apply the major/minor framework in these situations. the employees to perform bnsf's maintenance work. this case is squarely a minor on the company's right to sell rail lines. nor does the cba explicitly establish and the jua, as well as the rail workers' contention that bnsf retained all the of teamsters, and assignments and reduce the number of maintenance positions, so long as it for example, in the mid-1990s, bnsf sold a assignment of the maintenance obligations (1) violated 2 seventh of the arrangement violated the collective bargaining agreement's subcontracting rules, and operation of freight rail and associated facilities." app. at 250. the parties' a collective bargaining agreement) (citation omitted). while major disputes seek s.f. ry. co., 847 f.2d 403, 406 (7th cir. 1988) (finding the railroad produced work to its employees only if the company retains ownership of the property and working conditions"); bhd. of maint. of way employes div./ibt v. union pac. have to look at the line transfer transaction, the stb's decision regarding that respective management obligations were set forth in a joint use agreement control over the rail lines is arguable. "contractual silence can be construed as a determine the strength of those explanations when it resolves whether or not railway labor act (rla), 45 u.s.c. 151 et seq.; and (2) breached the first addressing these issues, the case qualifies as a major dispute. they reason collective bargaining agreement. "[w]hen in doubt" the courts are to "construe this case arises from burlington northern santa fe railway company's 203205 (8th cir. 1990) (whether the agreement permitted the railroad to use tenth circuit its action might be wrong); gen. comm. of adjustment, united transp. union, w. united states court of appeals matters, and thus this dispute cannot fall into the minor category. the rail
Unions Object to Losing Maintenance of Rail Line