Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen v. Connex Railroad LLC

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 5/2/2016:Mailed notice(wp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD
SIGNALMEN,
Case No. 15 C 10419
Plaintiff,
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber
v.
CONNEX RAILROAD, LLC,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,

the

Brotherhood”),
Connex

sued

violated

Brotherhood
Connex

various

of

Railroad

Railroad

provisions

LLC
of

Signalmen

(“Connex”),

the

Railway

(“the

alleging
Labor

Act

(“RLA”), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq., and requesting declaratory and
injunctive relief.
under

Rule

Connex filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint

12(b)(1)

[ECF No. 11].

for

lack

of

subject-matter

jurisdiction

For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants the

Motion to Dismiss.
I.
The

following

facts

BACKGROUND
are

Complaint and related exhibits.

drawn

from

the

Brotherhood’s

The Brotherhood is a labor union

representing railway signalmen who work for Connex Railroad.
dispute

centers

on

a

Brotherhood

member

named

Brandon

The

Snyder

(“Snyder”).

On June 4, 2015, Snyder was working as a signalman at

a

crossing

railroad

station

in

Pompano

Beach,

Florida.

The

railroad crossing devices at that station failed to activate while
a train was passing through, although there was no accident as a
result.
Connex officials believed Snyder should receive some form of
discipline for the June 4 signal failure.

Rule 47(a) of the

parties’ collective bargaining agreement (“the CBA”) states that
employees “will not be disciplined or dismissed without a fair and
impartial investigation.”

(Decl. of R. Gus Demott at 2.) That

rule also provides for various procedures to be followed in the
event

of

any

investigation.

Evidently,

Connex

conducted

a

preliminary look into the incident that stopped short of a formal
investigation.

After discussing the matter with the Brotherhood

officials representing Snyder, Connex sent Snyder a letter dated
June 12, 2015, stating in relevant part:
As a result of our discussion, you have agreed to waive
your rights to a formal investigation with the following
stipulations to be applied relative to your continued
service with VTMI, Inc. [Connex’s parent company]:
1)
Actual service suspension of 60 calendar days; 2)
Demotion to Signalman Status for a period of 6 months;
[and] 3) Agreement to assist in any further root cause
analysis required as part of the on-going investigation.
(Pl.

Resp.

Br.

Ex.

A.)

Brotherhood

representatives

further

discussed the terms of the letter with Snyder and recommended that
he agree to this resolution.

(Decl. of R. Gus Demott at 3.)

Snyder thus signed the waiver agreement.
The
lawsuit:

next

development

ultimately

triggered

the

present

on September 17, 2015, Snyder received a letter from
- 2 -

Connex

stating

terminated

that

his

immediately.

employment
The

letter

with

the

explained

railroad

that

the

was
South

Florida Rail Transit Authority (“SFRTA”), an entity separate from
Connex, conducted its own investigation into the signal failure
and Snyder’s involvement.

SFRTA then directed Connex to remove

Snyder immediately and permanently from all work within SFRTA’s
territory.

Connex complied, and curiously, Connex told Snyder

that his “disqualification by SFRTA from providing services serves
as a separate basis for termination, than the discipline imposed
as a result of Connex investigation of the June 4 failure.”

(Pl.

Resp. Br. Ex. B.)
The Brotherhood filed this suit on behalf of Snyder, seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief under the RLA against Connex for
its failure to follow the procedures outlined in the CBA.
II.
The

RLA

governs

the

LEGAL STANDARD
resolution

railways and their union employees.

of

labor

disputes

between

45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. There

are two such categories of disputes, although they are legal terms
of art not mentioned in the statute:
disputes.”

“minor disputes” and “major

See, Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Execs. Ass’n, 491

U.S. 299, 302 (1989).

The distinction between the two terms is

not precise, but in general, major disputes are those involving
the creation or modification of contractual rights, while minor
disputes are those involving the enforcement or interpretation of

- 3 -

those rights.

See, Consol. Rail Corp., 491 U.S. at 302; Chicago &

North Western Transp. Co. v. Ry. Labor Execs. Ass’n, 908 F.2d 144,
148 (7th Cir. 1990).
Minor disputes are governed by Section 3 of the RLA, which
mandates binding arbitration and forbids unions from striking. 45
U.S.C. § 153; see also, Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps. v. Atchison,
138 F.3d 635, 638 (7th Cir. 1997).

Major disputes, by contrast,

involve

of

a

potentially

long

course

bargaining

in

which

the

parties must maintain the status quo, and afterward, if there is
no resolution, the union may strike.

45 U.S.C. §§ 152, 156; see

also, Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emps., 138 F.3d at 638.

The upshot:

because the RLA compels arbitration of minor disputes, this Court
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over such disputes.
Connex

has

Rule 12(b)(1),
arbitration.

moved

arguing

to

that

dismiss
this

is

the
a

case

minor

pursuant

dispute

to

requiring

In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must

accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true, but the Court
may

also

consider

evidence

beyond

the

complaint

resolve the question of subject-matter jurisdiction.

in

order

to

See, United

Transp. Union v. Gateway Western Ry., 78 F.3d 1208, 1210 (7th Cir.
1996).

Even at this early stage, there is sufficient evidence in

the record to decide the jurisdictional question. The parties do
not

contest

the

operative

facts,

language relevant to the CBA.

and

both

highlight

the

same

The Brotherhood has also provided

- 4 -

exhibits for the Court to consider, including the waiver letter
signed by Snyder, the termination letter from Connex to Snyder,
and a letter from SFRTA to Connex.
III.
Resolution
dispute

at

issue

interpretation
Minor

of

application

is

of

disputes
of

this

the
are

a

ANALYSIS

case
minor

CBA

one.

between

“those

existing

is

fairly
It
the

involving

labor

straightforward;

involves

question

Brotherhood
the

agreements.”

Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 256 (1994).

a

and

interpretation
Hawaiian

question

of

whether

Snyder

was

of

Connex.
or

Airlines,

Here, the CBA mandates

a formal investigation prior to an employee’s termination.
the

the

entitled

to

Thus,

such

an

investigation turns on interpretation of the CBA’s language.
The waiver agreement muddies the waters somewhat, but not
enough to change the nature of the dispute.

It is true that the

agreement altered a provision in the CBA – Snyder waived his right
to

a

formal

punishments.

investigation

in

exchange

for

certain

stipulated

But the waiver agreement was just another contract

negotiated between the Brotherhood, Snyder, and Connex.

As such,

it is effectively another collective bargaining contract, and the
question of whether Connex breached it by terminating Snyder is
within

the

ambit

of

the

arbitrators.

Cf.

Bhd.

of

Locomotive

Eng’rs. v. Atchison, 768 F.2d 914, 920-21 (7th Cir. 1985).

If

Connex did breach, it seems plausible that Snyder would regain his

- 5 -

right to a formal investigation.

Nothing in the waiver letter

sought to displace the CBA entirely.
To emphasize, the waiver letter applied to Snyder only, not
to

all

Brotherhood

members

or

to

the

CBA

generally.

It

is

somewhat unusual for a union to bring an RLA claim for an adverse
employment action taken against only one member – the threat of
strike seems remote.

Typically, when only one union member is

affected, a plaintiff brings claims arising under other provisions
of federal and state law (such as breach of contract), and the
question is whether the RLA preempts those claims.

See, e.g.,

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246 (1994); Monroe v.
Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 115 F.3d 514 (7th Cir. 1997).

Here, the

only claims the Brotherhood has are for declaratory and injunctive
relief under the RLA.

Interestingly, even if the dispute were a

“major”

still

one,

bargaining
complaint

the

and
or

RLA

mediation,
supporting

mandates

and

there

briefs

an
is

whether

extensive
no

process

indication

the

of

in

the

Brotherhood

has

exhausted these procedures.
Regardless,
dispute.

the

Court

does

not

believe

this

is

a

major

As the Supreme Court has noted,

[Major disputes are] disputes over the formation of
collective agreements or efforts to secure them.
They
arise where there is no such agreement or where it is
sought to change the terms of one, and therefore the
issue is not whether an existing agreement controls the
controversy. They look to the acquisition of rights for
the future, not to assertion of rights claimed to have
vested in the past.
- 6 -

Consol. Rail Corp., 491 at 302 (citing Elgin, J & E Ry. v. Burley,
325 U.S. 711, 723 (1945)).

Here, the dispute is specific to one

employee, it arose out of existing agreements that were negotiated
between

Connex

and

the

Brotherhood,

and

it

implicates

a

right

vested in the past (namely, the right to a formal investigatory
hearing prior to termination).

As the dispute is minor within the

meaning of the RLA, the Court lacks subject matter-jurisdiction.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
[ECF No. 11] is granted.

The case is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
Dated: 5/2/2016

- 7 -