Bennett v. Public Law Board No. 7694 et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting 6 Motion to Dismiss by Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainman; granting 16 Motion to Dismiss by Public Law Board No. 7694.. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 5/17/2018. (pts)

Case 4:17-cv-00130-JRH-GRS Document 19 Filed 05/17/18 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

JOHN P. BENNETT,

Plaintiff,

*
*

V.

*

CV 417-130

*•

PUBLIC LAW BOARD NO. 7694;
CSX TRANSPORTATION; and

*
*

BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE

*

ENGINEERS AND TRAINMEN,

*
5

Defendant.

*

ORDER

Before

the

(the "Board")
Trainmen's

Complaint.

Court

and

(the

are

the

Defendants

Brotherhood

"Brotherhood")

(Docs. 6, 16.)

Public

of

Law

Board

Locomotive

motions

to

No.

7694

Engineers

dismiss

and

Plaintiff's

Plaintiff has failed to respond to

the motions; with the time for filing a response in opposition
having expired, the motion is ripe for consideration.
Board and the
7.5,

SDGa.

period

shall

motion.").

Brotherhood's

("Failure
indicate

For

the

to

motions

respond

that

there

following

Brotherhood's motions are GRANTED.

are deemed
within
is

reasons,

the
no

Thus, the

unopposed.
applicable

opposition

the

Board

LR
time

to

and

a

the

Case 4:17-cv-00130-JRH-GRS Document 19 Filed 05/17/18 Page 2 of 6

I.

The

facts

Plaintiff

of

Plaintiff's

was

employed

Transportation

{''CSX").

2015,

Plaintiff

BACKGROUND

was

as

a

complaint

train

engineer

are
for

out

of

service"

follows.

Defendant

(Compl., Doc. 1, i 8.)

"taken

as

CSX

On January 5,
and

eventually

terminated for operating a train at ten miles per hour over the
posted

speed

limit.

(Id.

8-9.)

In

May

2015,

Plaintiff

appealed his termination to the Board, an independent grievance
arbitration tribunal created pursuant to the Railway Labor Act
(the "Railway Act"), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.

(Id. SI 10.)

July 15, 2015, the Board upheld Plaintiff's termination.
11.)

On

(Id. SI

Plaintiff alleges that the Board's decision was based on

fraudulent evidence and evidence of Plaintiff's conduct that was

more than three years old.^
On
review

July
of

13,

the

2017,

Board's

(Id. SISI 13, 15.)

Plaintiff
decision

initiated

under

the

this

action

Railway

Act.

addition to CSX, Plaintiff named the Board and the

as defendants.^

In

Brotherhood

Plaintiff asks the Court to vacate the Board's

decision, reinstate
lost wages.

for

Plaintiff, and award

Plaintiff damages for

The Board and the Brotherhood now move to dismiss

Plaintiff's complaint.

^ CSX's policy allegedly prohibits considering such evidence.

(Compl. f 13.)

'Plaintiff does not describe the Brotherhood beyond identifying its mailing
address and naming it as a defendant in this case.

Case 4:17-cv-00130-JRH-GRS Document 19 Filed 05/17/18 Page 3 of 6

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
a

complaint

to

contain "a

short

plain

statement

of

the

claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," which gives a
defendant notice of the claim and its grounds.

Bell Atl. Corp.

V.

survive

Twombly,

12(b)(6)

550

motion

U.S.

to

544,

dismiss,

555

(2007).

To

a

complaint

must

include

a

Rule

enough

facts that demonstrate the plaintiff's right to relief is more
than speculative, and those facts must state a plausible claim
to relief.

Id. at 570.

While a complaint does not need to be

bursting with factual allegations, there must be something more
than

a

bare

bone

recital

of the

elements

of

a

cause

of

action.

Id. at 555.

However, a complaint should not be denied "unless it appears
beyond

a

doubt

circumstances

that

that

the

would

plaintiff

entitle

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).

him

can
to

prove
relief."

no

set

Conley

of
v.

Furthermore, the Court must

accept all factual allegations as true and construe them in the

light most favorable to the

plaintiff.

Army, 556 F.3d 1153, 1155 (11th Cir. 2009).

Belanger

v. Salvation

Case 4:17-cv-00130-JRH-GRS Document 19 Filed 05/17/18 Page 4 of 6

III.

As

a

preliminary

DISCUSSION

matter,

Plaintiff's

claim

against

the

Brotherhood fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a).

Beyond

identifying

action,

Plaintiff

fails

the

to

Board

allege

as

a

defendant

in

showing

that

any facts

this
the

Brotherhood engaged in conduct that would give rise to a cause
of action.

Thus, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against

the Brotherhood.

Additionally, Plaintiff's claim against the Board pursuant

to the Railway Act fails as a matter of law.

The Railway Act

was passed in response to a concern that labor disputes could
disrupt the nation's railroads.
the

Railway

Act

creates

a

45 U.S.C. 151a.

compulsory

In that vein,

arbitration

process

to

resolve disputes between a railroad carrier and its employees.

45 U.S.C. 153 First.
the

National

The arbitration process is administered by

Railroad

Adjustment

Board

("NRAB"),

arbitration board established by the Railway Act.
Locomotive

Eng'rs

&

Trainmen

Gen.

Comm.

of

a

permanent

Id.; Bhd. of

Adjustment

CSX

Transp. N. Lines v. CSX Transp., Inc., 522 F.Sd 1190, 1193 n.l
(llth

Cir.

2008).

Because

the

NRAB

has

limited

funds

and

is

often years in back log, the parties may alternatively agree to
have their
45

U.S.C.

dispute adjudicated
§

153

Second;

Int'l

by a
Bhd.

Public Law
of

Elec.

Board
Workers

("PLB").
v.

CSX

Case 4:17-cv-00130-JRH-GRS Document 19 Filed 05/17/18 Page 5 of 6

Transp., Inc♦ ,

446 F.3d 714,

"the major purpose
pressure

on

comprised
union.

the

of

45

of public

NRAB.") .

members

U.S.C.

the

party.

45

153

{7th Cir.

law boards
A

chosen

§

is normally final,
review

719

PLB

by

is

the

Second.

2006)

is

(observing that
relieve

workload

independent

an

to

tribunal

carrier

Although

and

the

the

employee's

board's

decision

the Railway Act allows the district court to

board's
U.S.C.

decisions
§

153

upon

First

petition

of

Second.

Accordingly,

(p) ,

an

aggrieved
the

instant action "is essentially a continuation of the proceedings
before the

Board."

See

AFL-CIO V.

Braidwood,

Sys.

284 F.

Fed.'n No.

Supp.

607,

30,

610

Railway Emp.

(N.D.

111.

Dep't,

1968) .

The Board argues that it is not a proper party to this case
because
agreed

it

is an

that

the

Railway Act.
318,

320

686

(4th

F.2d

the

independent tribunal.
NRAB

See,

e.g. ,

(7th Cir.
Cir.

157,

NRAB

159

is

an

Cir.

would

frustrate

602386,

of

at

Oilman v.
*5

(W.D.

held

v.

liable

Union Pac.

v.

1979) .

independent

Skidmore,

tribunal.

Radin

Skidmore

it decides.
also

be

Mitchell v.

2005);

1983) ;
(2d

cannot

Courts

Consolidated

These

tribunal

goal

Special Bd.
N.Y.

qualified arbitrators

Mar.

to

pursuant
R.

of

courts

with

no

have

serve

to
408

F.3d

F.2d

681,
619

reasoned

stake

the

Corp. ,

699

Rail

in

the

that

cases

Holding the NRAB liable
creating

an

of Adjustment No.

14,

Co. ,

United States,

619 F.2d at 159.
the

have unanimously

2005)

("[I]n

on NRAB panels

independent
1063,

the

it

2015 WL

recruitment

would be

a

Case 4:17-cv-00130-JRH-GRS Document 19 Filed 05/17/18 Page 6 of 6

serious

hindrance

dissatisfied

if

carriers

members
or

were

subject

employees.").

No.

1063^

527

F.3d

lawsuits

by

reasoning

This

equally applicable to a PLB like the Board.
Bd. of Adjustment

to

is

Oilman v. Special

239, 251 (2d

Cir.

2008).

Thus, because the Board is an independent tribunal with no stake

in the outcome of Plaintiff's case, it is not a

proper party

under the Railway Act.

IV.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege any facts that would
support a cause of action against the Brotherhood.

Therefore,

Plaintiff's

claim

against

dismissed.

Plaintiff's

claim

against

the

Brotherhood

the

Board

must

must

also

be
be

dismissed

because the Board is an independent tribunal and therefore not a
proper party to this case.

Upon

due

consideration,

the

Board

and

the

Brotherhood's

motions to dismiss (docs. 6, 16) are GRANTED.

ORDER

ENTERED

at

Augusta,

Georgia

this

day

of

/yit -^2018.

CHIEF JUDGE

UNITEiy STATES DISTRICT COURT
;rn

district of Georgia