IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND  SANTA FE  RAILWAY COMPANY
2600 Lou Menk Drive
P.O. Box 961030
Fort Worth, TX 76161.0030

CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORP                                                                            
2001 Market St.                                                                                                      
P.O. Box 41415                                                                   
Philadelphia PA 19101-1415

CSX TRANSPORTATION INC.                                                             CASE NUMBER 1.99cv03117
500 Water Street                                                                                        JUDGE Thomas F. Hogan
 Jacksonville, Florida 32202                                                                       DECK TYPE Civil General 
                                                                                                                   DATE STAMP: 11-24-99
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. .CO.
114 West 11th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64305-1804

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.
Three Commerce Pl.
Norfolk Vi r 23510-2191

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.
1416 Dodge St.
Omaha, Nebraska 68179

MANUFACTURERS RAILWAY COMPANY
2850 South Broadway
St. Louis, Missouri 63118-1810

PEORIA & PEKIN UNION RAILWAY CO.
101 Wesley Rd.
Creve Coeur, Illinois 61611

PORTLAND TERMINAL RAILROAD COMPANY
3500 N.W. Yeon Avenue
Portland. Oregon 97210

TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION OF ST. LOUIS
700 North Second Street
ST. Louis Missouri 63102

UTAH RAILWAY COMPANY
340 Hardscrabble Rd.
Helper, UT 84526.0261

WINSTON SALEM SOUTHBOUND RAILWAY COMPANY
4550 Overdale Road
Winston-Salem North Carolina 27107

                                                               Plaintiffs

                                   __ v.

UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION
14600 Detroit Av.
Cleveland, Ohio 44107

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS
Standard Building
1370 Ontario St.
Cleveland  Ohio 44113-1701

                                                  Defendants

1. This motion arises under the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C.

·§ 151 et seq. The plaintiff railroads seek a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief with respect to the defendant unions' refusal to bargain with the authorized bargaining representative of the plaintiff railroads on a multi-employer national handling basis in the current round of bargaining. The plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief concerning attempts by the defendant unions to bargain on less than a craft-wide basis with respect to certain employees of plaintiff  Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway, CSX Transportation Inc. and Norfolk Southern Railway.

                                                                                        Jurisdiction and Parties

2.      This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C.  pt 1331 and 1337

3.      Plaintiffs are common carriers by rail under the Interstate Commerce Act and are carriers as defined in Section 1 First of the RLA 45 U.S.C. pt. 151 first.

4.     Defendant United Transportation Union ("UTU") is an unincorporated association and a labor organization as defined in the RLA. The UTU represents certain crafts or classes of plaintiffs" employees, including trainmen, firemen, engineers, conductors and yardmasters, for purposes of collective bargaining and other matters arising under the RLA. The UTU regularly conducts business in this district.

5.     Defendant International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers ("BLE") is an unincorporated association organization as defined in the RLA. The BLE represents certain crafts or classes of plaintiffs' employees including locomotive engineers and firemen, for purposes of collective bargaining and other matters arising under the RLA. The BLE regularly conducts business in this district.

                      Collective Bargaining Under the Railway Labor Act

6.      Collective bargaining between railroads and their employees over rates of pay, rules, and working conditions is governed by the RLA. Under Section 6 of the RLA, parties to collective bargaining agreements must serve written notice of intended changes in agreements affecting rates of pay, or working conditions. Such proposals must be negotiated in conferences between representatives designated and authorized by the carrier or carriers and by the employees thereof interested in the dispute. 45 U.S.C. Pt. 152 Second; 156. If conferences fail,a the dispute is subject to mediation by the National Mediation Board ("NMB"). 45 U.S.C. pt. 155 First. If mediation fails, the President of the United States may appoint a presidential emergency board ("PEB") to investigate and issue recommendations for settlement of the dispute. 45 U.S.C. pt. 160. Until these procedures are exhausted, and for thirty days thereafter, parties must maintain the status quo established by previous agreements and may not resort to self help over the dispute. 45 U.S.C. 156, 155 First, 160.

7.      Section 2, First, 45 U.S.C. 152 First, of the RLA requires carriers and their employees"

"to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the application of such agreements, or otherwise, in order to avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier growing out of any dispute between the carrier and the employees thereof".

8.      Agreements in the railroad industry that are reached through these collective bargaining procedures do not normally contain an expiration date. Rather, they often contain what is commonly referred to as a "moratorium" under which new Section 6 notices proposing changes in rates of pay, rules, or working conditions cannot be served for a specified time. After the moratorium ends, the parties are free to serve " reopeners" under Section 6, although the agreement remains in effect while the RLA procedures for resolution of the new Section 6 proposals are exhausted.

9.      For many years, national collective bargaining agreements between the plaintiff railroads and their predecessors and national unions representing their employees, including the defendant unions, have had moratoriums allowing service of reopeners under Section 6 on each railroad at or about the same time. A new round of national bargaining, known in the industry as a "national wage and rules movement", therefore commences at or about the same time for all those unions, including the defendants.

         
                              Multi-Employer Bargaining

10.      Section 1 Sixth of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. 151 Sixth, authorizes " a carrier or group of carriers" to designate a representative "to act for it or them" in collective bargaining under the RLA.

11.      Multi-employer collective bargaining in the railroad industry is referred to as "national handling". For more than six decades, the plaintiff railroads and their predecessors have designated a multi-employer bargaining agent as their collective bargaining representative for national wage and rules movement. Since 1972, the carriers' national bargaining agent has been the National Carriers' Conference Committee ("NCCC"). national railroad unions, including the defendants, have designated national bargaining committees that have engaged in bargaining with the carriers' national bargaining representatives in the national wage and rules movements. These negotiations have generally resulted in national agreements, settling the issues in dispute with few disruptions to commerce.

12.     Under Section 2 First of the Railway Labor Act, the defendants UTU and BLE are obligated to bargain on a national handling basis in these national railroad wage and rules movement in light of the practical appropriateness and historical experience of such national bargaining.

13.      The last round of bargaining over rates of pay, rules and working conditions between the plaintiff railroads and the employees represented by both of the defendants commenced in 1994. Issues raised in the 1994 Section 6 notices exchanged by the carriers and the UTU were the subject of a national agreement arrived at by the arbitration on May 8, 1996 that settled or provided the framework for settlement of all issues in dispute in that round of bargaining. Issues raised in the 1994 Section 6 notices exchanged by the carriers and the BLE were the subject of a national agreement entered into on May 31, 1996 that settled or provided the framework for settlement of all issues in dispute in that round of bargaining.

14.     The national agreements with both of the defendants in the last round of bargaining included a moratorium on service of further Section 6 notices until November 1, 1999.

                                                               Craft-Wide representation

15.     The representative of a craft or class of employees of a particular carrier must be designated by a majority of the craft of class on that carrier. 45 U.S.C. 152 Fourth. Each such representative must bargain on behalf of the entire craft or class. 45 U.S.C. 152 First; 152 Fourth; 152 Ninth.

16.    Carriers have no obligation to bargain with employees "representatives" who do not purport to bargain on behalf of an entire craft or class of their employees, and any such "representative" who does not represent an entire craft or class has no right under the RLA to insist that a carrier bargain with it with respect to only a part of a craft or class.

                                                              The Current Round of Bargaining

17.     Each of the plaintiffs has designated the NCCC as its national representative for multi-employer bargaining in the current round of bargaining.

18.     On November 1, 1999, the plaintiff railroads, through the NCCC, served national Section 6 notices on both of the defendant unions.

19.     On November 1, 1999, Charles Little, the president of defendant UTU, sent a letter to Robert F. Allen, Chairman of the National Railway Labor Conference, stating among other things, that the carriers' Section 6 notices "must be served on the UTU General Chairpersons(s) with jurisdiction, after which you and the carrier officer(s) will be notified by such General Chairperson(s) at the appropriate time of the method for handling from the UTU's side."

20.     On november 12, 1999, three different UTU committees, each claiming to represent only portions of crafts or classes of employees on plaintiff Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway ("BNSF"), sent separate letters to BNSF, each of which refers to the railroads' November 1, 1999 Section 6 notice and states that if such communications

"was intended to serve notice under Section 6 on this General Committee...then be advised this Committee is not currently involved in any "national handling" and President Little is not the proper representative on which such notice would be served under the Act...This Committee reserves the right to serve its own Section 6 Notice to be handled concurrently with the Carrier's notice with full rights of amendment and/or supplication."

Additional letters stating the same positions were sent by two other UTU committees to BNSF on November 12, 1999 and November 15, 1999.

21.     On November 12, 1999, Edward Dubroski, the president of defendant BLE, sent a letter to Robert F. Allen, Chairman of the National Railway Labor Conference, stating, among other things, that

"While we are confirming that we agreed to meet with the carrier(s) to discuss the carriers' Section 6 notices, our confirmation did not waive the right of the individual general committee of adjustment to meet with their respective carriers. In fact, as I stated in my letter, the International Division of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers has not received authorization from amy of our general committees of adjustment and, therefore, we do not have authority to meet on their behalf with you."

22.     On November 9, 1999, four BLE committees, each claiming to represent only portions of the craft of class of locomotive engineers on plaintiff BNSF, sent a letter to BNSF which states that the designation of the NCCC as the railroad's bargaining representative is "objectionable to these General Committees." The letter further states that "these Committees intent to conduct such negotiations locally" and asserts that BNSF "is obligated to handle such matters locally>

23. On November 11, 1999, three different BLE committees, each claiming to represent only portions of the craft or class of locomotive engineers on plaintiff NS sent separate letters to NS, each of which states that the designation of the NCCC as the railroad's bargaining representative is "objectionable to this General Committee. This Committee intends to conduct such negotiations locally, so long as this Committee retains jurisdiction of its notices.
24.     On information and belief, a BLE committee claiming to represent only a portion of the craft or class of locomotive engineers on plaintiff CSX Transportation Inc. ("CSXT") insists on bargaining separately with that carrier in the current round of bargaining, not on a national handling basis, and not on a craft wide basis

25.     On Information and belief, a BLE committee claiming to represent a craft or class of employees on plaintiff Consolidated Rail Corporation ("Conrail insists on bargaining separately with Conrail in the current round of bargaining, not on a national handling basis.

                                                        Count One: National Handling

26.    The allegations contained in paragraph 1-25 are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.

27.    Under the circumstances alleged in this Complaint, the defendants may not lawfully refuse to bargain on a national handling basis with the duly authorized national representative of plaintiffs in the current round of bargaining with respect to all employees of the plaintiffs in each craft or class each defendant represents. The refusal of the defendants to bargain on a national handling basis with the duly authorized national bargaining representative of the plaintiffs violates Section 1 sixth and 2 First of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. 151 Sixth, 152 First.

                                                       Count two: Craft-Wide Bargaining on BNSF

28.     The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-25 are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.

29.    Under the circumstances alleged in this Complaint, the refusal of defendant UTU to bargain on a craft-wide basis with respect to BNSF employees violates Section 2 First, 2 Fourth, and/or 2 Ninth of the RLA.

30.      Under the circumstances alleged in this Complaint, the refusal of defendant BLE to bargain on a craft-wide basis with respect to BNSF employees violates Section 2 First, 2 Fourth, and/or 2 Ninth of the RLA.

                                                   Count Three: Craft-Wide Bargaining on NS

31.     The allegations contained in paragraph 1-25 are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.

32.      Under the circumstances alleged in this Complaint, the refusal of defendant BLE to bargain on a craft-wide basis with respect to NS employees violates Section 2 First, 2 Fourth, and/or 2 Ninth of the RLA.

                                                  Count Four: Craft-Wide Bargaining on CSXT

33.     The allegations contained in paragraph 1-25 are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.

34.     Under the circumstances alleged in this Complaint, the refusal of defendant BLE to bargain on a craft-wide basis with respect to CSXT employees violates Section 2 First, 2 Fourth, and/or 2 Ninth of the RLA.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that:

1.      This Court issue a declaratory judgment declaring that the defendants, UTU and BLE, their respective departments, divisions, lodges, locals, officers, agents, employees, members, and all persons acting in concert or participation with any of them, to bargain on a national handling basis with the plaintiffs' duly authorized national representative with respect to the current round of bargaining.

2.     This court issue an injunction ordering the defendants UTU and BLE, their respective departments, divisions, lodges, locals, officers, agents, employees, members, and all persons acting in concert or participation with any of them, to bargain on a national handling basis with the plaintiffs' duly authorized national representative with respect to the current round of bargaining.

3.     This Court issue a declaritory judgement declaring that the defendants UTU and BLE, their respective departments, divisions, lodges, locals, officers, agents, employees, members, and all persons acting in concert or participation with any of them, are obligated to bargain with each plaintiff railroad on a craft-wide basis with respect to the wage, health and welfare, and rules issues in the current round of bargaining.

4. This Court issue an injunction ordering the defendants UTU and BLE, their respective departments, divisions, lodges, locals, officers, agents, employees, members, and all persons acting in concert or participation with any of them, to bargain with each plaintiff railroad on a craft-wide basis with respect to the wage, health and welfare, and rules issues in the current round of bargaining.

5.     This Court provide any other and further relief deemed just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

Ralph J. Moore, Jr. (D.C. Bar # 076075)
Donald J. Munro (D.C. Bar # 453600)
SHEA &GARDNER
1800 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington DC 20036
(202) 828-2000

David P. Lee
Joanna L. Moorhead
NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR CONFERENCE
1901 L. ST. NW
Washington DC 20036
(202) 862-7200

November 23, 1999           ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS