In the 1942 Williams case, the Supreme Court held that the parts of the RLA prohibiting changes to pay during collective bargaining do not apply to the carrier in cases where there is not a prior collective bargaining agreement. [13] In that case, representatives of red caps employed by a railroad terminal brought action to recover unpaid wages and damages under violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and RLA. [14] Under the Court's interpretation of the statutory language of the RLA, particularly the phrase "in agreements," the status quo provisions apply only to agreements reached after collective bargaining. [15]
[1] It addressed the question of whether a labor union is entitled to enjoin an air carrier to prevent it from unilaterally altering the working conditions of its pilots, while negotiations for an initial collective bargaining agreement are still pending. [2] The court cited the Supreme Court's interpretation of the status quo provisions of the Railway Labor Act of 1926 in Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal Co ., in ruling that unilateral alteration of working conditions are not prohibited in cases where there is no prior collective bargaining agreement, regardless of any pending negotiations. [3] The Teamsters case well illustrates a continuing debate as to whether the Supreme Court's interpretation of the RLA's status quo provisions still adequately serves the RLA's original purpose of promoting peaceable resolution of labor disputes.
The status quo provisions are scattered throughout the statutory language of the RLA, precluding alterations at specific points during the resolution of major disputes. [9] The general duties of the RLA include the provision that, "No carrier, its officers, or agents shall change the rates of pay, rules or working conditions of its employees, as a class, as embodied in agreements . . . ." [10] In addition, the parties have a duty to "exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements or otherwise . . . " [11] This responsibility commences before any agreement has been formed. [12]
[5] The federal government's interest in the regulation of carrier labor disputes derives from its recognition that interstate commerce relies on the transportation industry and that any disruption of that industry resulting from labor unrest may have devastating effects on both the industry itself and the national economy. [6] The RLA serves to "avoid any interruption to commerce or the operation of any carrier" by providing a procedural framework, within which carriers and their labor unions can peaceably settle labor disputes without disrupting operations. [7] The RLA's status quo provisions, essential to its purpose, "prevent the union from striking and management from doing anything that would justify a strike." [8]
It is essential that the parties can operate in an environment where they can agree on whatever is necessary to continue operations of the industry without the threat of interruption by strike . The interest to be protected by the RLA is the continued operation of the transportation industry; necessary to that continued operation is the ability of the parties to agree. Therefore, the government's interest should be in promoting an environment in which negotiations may be conducted without undue interference. Enforcing agreements is necessary to that interest, but only insofar as it promotes unencumbered negotiations.
Due to the 1978 government deregulation of the airline industry and the financial difficulties resulting from the events of September 11, 2001, the airline industry has become increasingly competitive. [26] Maintaining profitability in this environment has required airlines to increase efficiency and decrease operating costs. [27] This state of affairs leaves workers in a rather precarious position, especially considering the absence of protection for members of new unions that have not yet completed an initial collective bargaining agreement.
IBT raised a number of arguments amounting to the claim that Williams does not apply to the facts of its case. Their first argument cites the statutory language's lack of an express limitation on the applicability of the status quo requirements. [32] Together with Shore Line 's vision of an "integrated, harmonious scheme" for the preservation of the status quo from the beginning of the dispute to the end, the lack of express limitation, claims IBT, implies that unilateral changes in working conditions ought to be prohibited even before the completion of an initial collective bargaining agreement. [33]
If either party refuses the proffer of arbitration, the NMB must immediately notify both parties that mediation has failed and for 30 days thereafter no changes may be made to rates of pay, rules, working conditions or established practices. The written notice is known as a “release” from mediation. The 30-day period following the release is known as the 30-day cooling off period. During the cooling off period, the Board may actively encourage the parties to meet and attempt to resolve their dispute through negotiations. At the end of the 30-day cooling off period, the parties may engage in self-help, subject to the establishment of a Presidential Emergency Board.
The RLA’s procedures for resolving bargaining disputes, which are referred to by the courts as major disputes, are designed to facilitate negotiations , to narrow disputes, and to focus public opinion on the participants in order to pressure the parties to voluntarily reach an agreement . The NMB’s ability to hold the parties in mediation to force good faith negotiations and to assist the parties in reaching settlements, coupled with the status quo requirements of the RLA, are intended to incentivize the peaceful and prompt resolution of disputes. The NMB can time the release of the parties from mediation to coincide with a period when Congress is in session and positioned to address the dispute. PEBs also contribute to the settlement process. The various aspects of the bargaining process are outlined in additional detail below.
On the shelf, on ice or recessed are unofficial terms used to describe an NMB decision to postpone any additional mediatory efforts for a specific period of time while declining to release the parties. At this point, the self-help options available to a carrier and union are indefinitely frozen.
More specifically, creation of a PEB stops a strike, lockout, or other form of self-help, generally, for 60 days. The emergency board has 30 days to issue a report, which typically includes recommendations for settling the dispute; this period may be extended by the president. After the PEB reports to the president, the parties are released into another 30-day cooling off period to consider the PEB’s recommendations as potential basis for an agreement. If an agreement cannot be reached by the conclusion of the second cooling-off period, the parties are free to engage in self-help, including strikes, lock outs, and unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employment absent legislative action by Congress to the contrary.
The purposes of the RLA are to avoid any interruption of interstate commerce by providing for the prompt disposition of disputes between carriers and their employees and to protect the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively. The RLA imposes a duty on carriers and employees to exert every reasonable effort to make ...
Impasse. Generally, an impasse exists when progress is not being made in negotiations. Typically, the carrier or union invokes the mediation process after an impasse occurs. The carrier and union may file an application for mediation individually or jointly. Under certain circumstances, the NMB may invoke mediation on its own.
The NMB consists of three members appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate to serve a three-year term. No more than two members of the NMB may be of the same political party. A member may continue to serve while a replacement appointment or reappointment is pending. The NMB also employs staff mediators and other specialists to assist it in its work.
In the 1942 Williams case, the Supreme Court held that the parts of the RLA prohibiting changes to pay during collective bargaining do not apply to the carrier in cases where there is not a prior collective bargaining agreement. [13] In that case, representatives of red caps employed by a railroad terminal brought action to recover unpaid wages and damages under violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and RLA. [14] Under the Court's interpretation of the statutory language of the RLA, particularly the phrase "in agreements," the status quo provisions apply only to agreements reached after collective bargaining. [15]
[1] It addressed the question of whether a labor union is entitled to enjoin an air carrier to prevent it from unilaterally altering the working conditions of its pilots, while negotiations for an initial collective bargaining agreement are still pending. [2] The court cited the Supreme Court's interpretation of the status quo provisions of the Railway Labor Act of 1926 in Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal Co ., in ruling that unilateral alteration of working conditions are not prohibited in cases where there is no prior collective bargaining agreement, regardless of any pending negotiations. [3] The Teamsters case well illustrates a continuing debate as to whether the Supreme Court's interpretation of the RLA's status quo provisions still adequately serves the RLA's original purpose of promoting peaceable resolution of labor disputes.
The status quo provisions are scattered throughout the statutory language of the RLA, precluding alterations at specific points during the resolution of major disputes. [9] The general duties of the RLA include the provision that, "No carrier, its officers, or agents shall change the rates of pay, rules or working conditions of its employees, as a class, as embodied in agreements . . . ." [10] In addition, the parties have a duty to "exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements or otherwise . . . " [11] This responsibility commences before any agreement has been formed. [12]
[5] The federal government's interest in the regulation of carrier labor disputes derives from its recognition that interstate commerce relies on the transportation industry and that any disruption of that industry resulting from labor unrest may have devastating effects on both the industry itself and the national economy. [6] The RLA serves to "avoid any interruption to commerce or the operation of any carrier" by providing a procedural framework, within which carriers and their labor unions can peaceably settle labor disputes without disrupting operations. [7] The RLA's status quo provisions, essential to its purpose, "prevent the union from striking and management from doing anything that would justify a strike." [8]
It is essential that the parties can operate in an environment where they can agree on whatever is necessary to continue operations of the industry without the threat of interruption by strike . The interest to be protected by the RLA is the continued operation of the transportation industry; necessary to that continued operation is the ability of the parties to agree. Therefore, the government's interest should be in promoting an environment in which negotiations may be conducted without undue interference. Enforcing agreements is necessary to that interest, but only insofar as it promotes unencumbered negotiations.
Due to the 1978 government deregulation of the airline industry and the financial difficulties resulting from the events of September 11, 2001, the airline industry has become increasingly competitive. [26] Maintaining profitability in this environment has required airlines to increase efficiency and decrease operating costs. [27] This state of affairs leaves workers in a rather precarious position, especially considering the absence of protection for members of new unions that have not yet completed an initial collective bargaining agreement.
IBT raised a number of arguments amounting to the claim that Williams does not apply to the facts of its case. Their first argument cites the statutory language's lack of an express limitation on the applicability of the status quo requirements. [32] Together with Shore Line 's vision of an "integrated, harmonious scheme" for the preservation of the status quo from the beginning of the dispute to the end, the lack of express limitation, claims IBT, implies that unilateral changes in working conditions ought to be prohibited even before the completion of an initial collective bargaining agreement. [33]