Railway Labor Act Does Not Require Maintenance of Status Quo During Negotiations
 
May 14, 2008
 
Guy Farmer - Jacksonville

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that an airline was not required by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which applies to airlines as well as railroads, to maintain the status quo while bargaining for a first contract. In this case, the airline, a defense contractor and the union engaged in protracted negotiations for a first collective bargaining agreement after the union was certified as the bargaining representative for the pilots. During this time, the airline, for economic reasons, made substantial changes in the terms and conditions of the pilots’ employment. There was no existing contract.

In its decision, which rejected the view of the Eleventh Circuit on this issue, the Ninth Circuit pointed out that while several sections of the RLA preclude the parties from unilaterally changing the status quo during collective bargaining, all relate to the settlement of major disputes after the formation of the contract. Since there was no contract in place in this case, the Court ruled that the RLA status quo provisions did not apply.
The RLA, passed in 1926, was one of the first labor laws in the United States. Like the NLRA, it provides for the organization of employees for free collective bargaining, but unlike the NLRA, it also includes a strong policy and a variety of provisions designed to avoid or delay any strikes or other interruptions of commerce.

Delaying or Avoiding Strikes

The RLA seeks to delay or avoid strikes in two ways. First, the RLA prolongs the collective bargaining process. The RLA requires that an agency of the federal government, the National Mediation Board (NMB), release the parties 30 days before a strike can occur with the time of that release being in the sole discretion of the NMB. The second feature of the RLA designed to avoid strikes is a requirement for mandatory arbitration of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of existing labor agreements. Airlines are required to include an arbitration clause in their agreements and railroads are subject to a federal arbitration board or privately established board. The parties cannot lock out or strike about arbitrable issues and cannot take any action inconsistent with an arbitration decision. The NLRA does not include similar strike avoidance provisions.

The Ninth Circuit decision on maintaining the status quo is contrary to the prevailing law in cases under the National Labor Relations Act which hold that the employer must maintain the status quo during collective bargaining even for a first contract. This ruling is a further example of the fact that while the NLRA and RLA are similar, there are significant differences in the two laws of which employers that are covered by the RLA must be aware.

For more information, email Guy Farmer at guy.farmer@hklaw.com or call toll free, 1.888.688.8500.