Court Rejects Union Pacific’s Attempt to Vacate Arbitration Decision

U.S. District Court affirms appeals of the RLA process for handling labor disputes is highly limited

A federal court in Omaha upheld the reinstatement of a BMWED member on Union Pacific Oct. 25, the correct decision and an obvious cause for celebration. What makes it especially noteworthy, however, is what the court said about the railroad’s craven attempt to vacate the award in the first place and its affirmation that labor disputes mostly remain the purview of Arbitration Adjustment Boards as stated in the Railway Labor Act.

A brief explainer of Adjustment Boards and their role as prescribed by the RLA is important to fully understand the significance of Senior United States District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon’s ruling, and the devious strategy Union Pacific was intending to employ.

The collective bargaining agreement between the BMWED and Union Pacific mandates that any charged employee must receive a fair hearing. At a hearing, the carrier is responsible for the burden of proof.

Far too often the railroad’s kangaroo court convicts a charged employee despite obvious flaws in their case. When that occurs, the Railway Labor Act allows for an adjustment board to arbitrate the dispute. With an impartial arbitrator, the hope is unjust and unwarranted charges will be remedied, and that any bogus accusations or other problems with the carrier’s prosecution of the charged member be corrected.

In other words, the RLA spells out precisely the rules with which the BMWED and rail management operate in handling “minor” labor disputes, such as supposed violations of carrier policy and rules.

Union Pacific was unhappy with the adjustment board’s decision and instead of accepting it – as has been protocol for decades – elected to appeal the arbitrator’s decision to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Now that may sound like a routine step, but it marked a potentially major shift in how “minor” rail labor disputes would come to resolution. Union Pacific attempted to change the rules of the game, strategizing that their financial advantage to prolong unfavorable decisions legally could result in an avenue to overturn arbitration that didn’t go their way.

Rightfully, Judge Bataillon ruled that federal court review of arbitration decisions rendered by an adjustment board is highly limited. Courts, he said, can only overturn an award for specific reasons such as jurisdictional overreach, procedural non-compliance with the RLA, or proven fraud. His decision reinforces the importance of arbitration in labor disputes under the RLA and underscores the limited scope for judicial review in such cases.

For decades, the RLA has provided our members with a fair and economical path to justice when accused of wrongdoing and potential termination. Yes, the gears of justice can grind slowly, and sometimes an arbitration decision can be disappointing. But the process is fair to both the Union and the carrier, as it was intended when the RLA first adopted the process.

To attempt to subjugate this process by prolonging unfavorable awards to federal court is corrupt behavior on the part of Union Pacific and the decision of the court to stop it is a correct repudiation of their dishonest plan.