Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20494
RENE L. MINJARES, JOHN F. PERRY, GERALD S. ROSS,
WILLIAM E. TWYMAN, BRUCE FORREST,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
INDEPENDENT ASSOCIATION OF CONTINENTAL PILOTS,
PATRICK J. BURKE, JOHN H. PRATER, RANDY J. NEWMAN,
EDWARD J. PEARCE, VINCE SCHIRETTA,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
June 20, 2002
Before STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.*
CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge:
* Judge Politz was a member of the panel that heard oral arguments. However, due to his death on May 25,
2002, he did not participate in this decision. This case is being decided by a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d)
(1996).
1

Plaintiffs Rene Minjares, John F. Perry, Gerald S. Ross, William E. Twyman, and Bruce
Forrest (collectively, the "Pilots"), appeal from the district court's ruling that the proposed merger
of the Pilots' union, the Independent Association of Continental Pilots ("Independent"), with another
union, the Air Line Pilots Association Internat ional ("Air Line"), did not violate Independent's
constitution and bylaws ("Constitution"). Because we find that this dispute falls within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board ("Board"), we REVERSE and REMAND with
instructions to dismiss the Pilots' claim for lack of jurisdiction.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Independent was organized in 1991 and is comprised of pilots who fly for Continental Airlines
and Continental Express. In 1993, Independent was certified by the Board to represent and promote
the interests and rights of its members. Concomitantly, Independent's organizational structure was
established through the adoption of its Constitution.
On December 12, 2000, Independent's Board of Directors ("BOD") agreed to merge
Independent with Air Line. Under the proposed merger, Independent's certification as representative
of its members would be transferred to Air Line, along with $12 million in assets. Pursuant to
Independent's Constitution, a vote was required to ratify the merger. Four days before the ballots
were distributed, the Pilots, all Independent members, filed their Original Petition and Application for
Temporary Restraining Order and for Temporary Injunction in state court claiming, among other
things, that the merger violated the Constitution of Independent. The defendants removed and the
district court denied the request for a temporary restraining order. To expedite matters before the
scheduled vote, the Pilots requested that a separate trial be held to determine whether the proposed
merger violated the Constitution. The court granted the request and a bench trial was held. The
2

court found that the merger did not violate the Constitution. Subsequently, the Pilots moved to
dismiss their remaining claims without prejudice. While the motion was pending, the Pilots appealed
to this Court with motions for interlocutory appeal, an injunction pending appeal, and a request for
an expedited appeal. Independent opposed the motions and moved for summary dismissal of the
appeal due to absence of a final judgment, the failure to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2001), and
the absence of jurisdiction. We denied the Pilots' motions and, subsequently, the district court
granted their motion to dismiss without prejudice and issued final judgment. The Pilots appealed
again. Independent's motion for summary dismissal, which alleged lack of jurisdiction, was denied
as moot.
DISCUSSION
Before we can reach the merits of the Pilots' claim, we must address Independent's contention
that this Court lacks jurisdiction. Independent avers that Section 152, Ninth, of the Railway Labor
Act ("RLA") commits questions about union representation to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board.
See 45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth (1986). It contends that the Pilots' challenge to the merger falls within
the ambit of a representational dispute, over which the Board has sole jurisdiction. The Pilots counter
that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1993). They argue that this case is not
a mere "representational dispute" because it does not involve a dispute "among a carrier's employees
as to who [are] the representatives of such employees." See § 152. They aver that the Board's
jurisdiction is limited to disputes between rival employee representatives, as opposed to the current
dispute, which they argue is among union members and their representative.
The district court found that this was not a jurisdictional dispute between unions nor a dispute
over who is the representative of the Pilots. Rather, it found that this is an internal dispute between
3

union members and their undisputed collective bargaining representative. Thus, the court concluded
that it had jurisdiction. We disagree.
We review questions of jurisdiction de novo. Treaty Pines Inv. P'ship v. Comm'r of Internal
Revenue, 967 F.2d 206, 210 (5th Cir. 1992). Section 152, Ninth of the RLA, commits
"representation disputes" to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board. Landry v. Airline Pilots Ass'n
Int'l AFL-CIO, 901 F.2d 404, 414 (5th Cir. 1990). It provides:
Disputes as to identity of representatives; designation by Mediation Board; secret elections
If any dispute shall arise among a carrier's employees as to who are the representatives of
such employees designated and authorized in accordance with the requirements of this
chapter, it shall be the duty of the Mediation Board . . . to investigate such dispute and to
certify to both parties . . . the name or names of the individuals or organizations that have
been designated and authorized to represent the employees involved in the dispute, and certify
the same to the carrier. Upon receipt of such certification the carrier shall treat . . . the
representative so certified as the representative of the craft or class for the purposes of this
chapter.
45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth.
Disputes which involve the determination of the certified representative of airline employees
in collective bargaining and contract administration are classified by the RLA as "representation
disputes." Landry, 901 F.2d at 414; see also Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
& Helpers of Am. v. Tex. Int'l Airlines, Inc., 717 F.2d 157, 159 (5th Cir. 1983) ("It is the duty of the
Board to investigate any dispute as to who is the collective bargaining representative of employees
and to certify the organization properly designated.").
We have held that the courts have jurisdiction to settle a dispute which poses a genuine issue
as to the validity of a collective bargaining agreement. Order of Ry. Conductors & Brakemen v.
Switchmen's Union of N. Am., 269 F.2d 726, 729 (5th Cir. 1959). However, "district courts have
4

no such authority where `validity' of the contract depends upon the merits of a representation
dispute." Bhd. of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 413 F.2d 19,
24 (5th Cir. 1969) (quoting Div. No. 14, Order of R.R. Telegraphers v. Leighty, 298 F.2d 17, 20 (4th
Cir. 1962)). In Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, the Teamsters were informed that upon merger, Continental
Airlines's employment policies would apply and the Teamsters' collective bargaining agreement
would cease to be effective. 717 F.2d at 158. The Teamsters sought a declaratory judgment that its
collective bargaining agreement would remain effective until a new employee representative was
certified. Id. They acknowledged that the merger created a representational dispute, but argued that
this issue had nothing to do with the validity of the collective bargaining agreement. Id. at 163. We
concluded that the collective bargaining agreement could not be "dissected" because it was not
merely a negotiated contract; instead, the agreement itself recognized the Teamsters' as the
bargaining representative. Id. As such, we found that the district court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to determine the collective bargaining agreement's validity because such a determination
would implicitly decide the Teamsters' status as collective bargaining representative. Id. at 161, 164.
In Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. Tex. Int'l Airlines, the Second Circuit found that it lacked
jurisdiction to intervene in an allegedly illegal attempt by Texas International Airlines to circumvent
its collective bargaining obligations. 656 F.2d 16, 20, 24 (2d Cir. 1981). The Court noted that
judicial intervention "would necessarily involve [a determination of] whether [the Air Line Pilots
Association was] the proper representative of the [union]." Id. at 22. As such, the Court concluded
that the action was not justiciable. Id. at 24.

Independent asserts that Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters is inapposite because it dealt with the
Board's specific jurisdiction to conduct an election after a merger, which differs from the case before
5

this Court. In Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, however, the Teamsters asserted that they only sought a
declaration as to the continued validity of the collective bargaining agreement during a merger. 717
F.2d at 161. Nonetheless, we concluded that if we granted injunctive relief, thereby maintaining the
status quo, the result would be that "at least during the period of the injunction," we would have
decided the representation issue. Id. at 161. As in Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters and Air Line Pilots Ass'n,
any decision we make about the validity of the merger between Air Line and Independent necessarily
will decide the representation issue.
In Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Northeast Airlines, Inc., the plaintiff
union had been the representative of certain Northeast Airlines employees prior to a merger with
Delta. 536 F.2d 975, 976 (1st Cir. 1976). The union sued Delta, claiming that Delta's failure to
bargain violated its substantive duties under the RLA. In affirming the dismissal of the complaint, the
court stated that "[a]t the very least, the merger created real doubts about whether plaintiffs represent
the majority of any Delta craft or class of employees, and where there is such doubt, federal courts
leave resolution of the dispute to the National Mediation Board." Id. at 977.
We recognize that, unlike the issue presented in Int'l Ass'n of Machinists, a union's decision
to merge into another union could be viewed as a purely internal union matter, having no relationship
to the RLA process. However, the practical effect of our interfering with the merger would be a
court imposed decision effectively deciding who represents the Pilots. This fact, together with the
historically limited ro le of the courts in enforcing the RLA, leads us to conclude that the RLA
"affords the sole and mandatory means for resolving" the dispute. See Summit Airlines, Inc. v.
Teamsters Local Union No. 295, 628 F.2d 787, 793 (2d Cir. 1980). Because we conclude that the
courts lack jurisdiction over this matter, we do not reach the merits of Independent's argument
6

regarding the merger.
CONCLUSION
Because this claim should have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction, we REVERSE and
REMAND with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
7