Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Intern. v. Eastern Air Lines
1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14813, 701 F. Supp. 865, 130 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2322 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Railway Labor Act, an employer's decision to sell a significant operational division is considered a 'minor dispute' if the action is arguably justified by the terms of existing collective bargaining agreements or by a history of consistent past practices where the employer made unilateral operational changes that were acquiesced to by the unions.
Facts:
- Eastern Air Lines, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Texas Air Corporation, was experiencing severe and ongoing financial losses.
- Despite its overall financial trouble, Eastern operated the profitable Air Shuttle service between New York City, Boston, and Washington, D.C., which employed approximately 700 people.
- The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), International Association of Machinists (IAM), and Transport Workers Union (TWU) represented Eastern's employees under collective bargaining agreements that were either expired and under negotiation or soon to be renegotiated.
- On October 12, 1988, Eastern announced an agreement to sell its entire Air Shuttle division, including aircraft and airport facilities, to Trump Shuttle, Inc. for $365 million cash.
- The purchase agreement stipulated that Trump Shuttle would offer guaranteed employment to Eastern's shuttle employees, recognize their unions, and maintain existing wages and work rules.
- Historically, Eastern had a record of unilaterally selling assets and eliminating services without prior bargaining with the unions, including closing its Charlotte hub and discontinuing its Moonlight Special cargo service and Military Airlift Command operations.
- The Shuttle sale was smaller in scale than other recent unilateral changes by Eastern; a recent schedule change affected over 3,000 employees, whereas the Shuttle sale affected approximately 700.
Procedural Posture:
- The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), International Association of Machinists (IAM), and Transport Workers Union (TWU) filed separate complaints against Eastern Air Lines in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The unions jointly filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop Eastern from completing the proposed sale of its Air Shuttle division to Trump Shuttle, Inc.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an airline's sale of a profitable operating division constitute a 'major dispute' under the Railway Labor Act, thereby requiring bargaining with unions prior to the sale, when the airline has a history of unilaterally selling assets and reducing operations?
Opinions:
Majority - Barrington D. Parker
No. The sale of the Shuttle division does not constitute a 'major dispute' but is rather a 'minor dispute' under the Railway Labor Act, as it is arguably justified by past agreements and practices. A dispute is classified as minor if the employer's action is arguably comprehended within an existing collective bargaining agreement or consistent with settled past practices. Here, Eastern's labor agreements with the unions contained broad provisions contemplating work reductions, furloughs, and employee transfers. More significantly, Eastern had a well-established history of unilaterally selling assets, closing hubs, and discontinuing services without prior bargaining, and the unions had acquiesced to these actions. Because the Shuttle sale is analogous to these past practices, it is considered an implied part of the working conditions and does not trigger the RLA's status quo and mandatory bargaining obligations associated with major disputes. Furthermore, fundamental managerial decisions concerning the scope and direction of a business lie at the core of entrepreneurial control and are not mandatory subjects of bargaining. Finally, applying the Wright Line test, even if some anti-union animus motivated the sale, Eastern demonstrated a compelling and legitimate business reason—its dire financial condition—and would have sold the Shuttle regardless.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the distinction between 'major' and 'minor' disputes under the Railway Labor Act in the context of corporate restructuring. It solidifies the principle that a carrier's consistent 'past practice' of making unilateral operational changes can effectively become an implied term of the labor agreement, thus allowing for substantial asset sales without pre-sale bargaining. The ruling empowers management, particularly of financially distressed companies, to make fundamental business decisions without being blocked by union-sought injunctions. By classifying such a significant transaction as a 'minor dispute,' the court narrows the scope of actions that require exhaustion of the RLA's lengthy bargaining procedures, limiting unions' ability to prevent major corporate changes.
