Whether the parties' labor dispute was a "major" or a "minor" dispute under the Railway Labor Act (RLA); 45 USC §§ 151a, 152, & 156; Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co. v. Burley; Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n; Obligation to maintain the status quo; United Transp. Union v. Cuyahoga Valley Ry. Co.; Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R.R. Co. v. United Transp. Union; Illinois Cent. R.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng'rs (7th Cir.); Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET)

Where the economic dispute between the plaintiff-Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company (the Railroad) and the defendant-union (BLET) was a "major dispute" under the RLA, the district court erred by entering a preliminary injunction barring BLET from taking any economic action against the Railroad. The primary issue was the Railroad's proposal to eliminate the "crew consist rule," which required the railroad to assign a union conductor to all freight trains, from the "scope rule" of the Trainmen Agreement. While the dispute was in mediation, BLET members began a strike against the Railroad, claiming that the Railroad violated the mediation "status quo" by continuing to operate trains without union conductors. The Railroad characterized the dispute as "minor," and successfully filed for a preliminary injunction to end the strike. The court vacated the injunction, finding that the parties were engaged in a "major" dispute. "The scope rule of the Trainmen Agreement expressly requires the Railroad to assign a union conductor to every train." The court concluded that to "adopt the Railroad's position would undercut the clear language of the crew consist rule - which was expressly bargained by the parties years ago - without requiring the Railroad to complete the Section 6 negotiations . . . to remove the crew consist rule from the Trainmen Agreement." The court noted that disputes "about the making of collective bargaining agreements are major disputes." Because the dispute was "major" the parties were "obligated by law to maintain the status quo" during mediation. "[T]he Railroad was not free to implement at will the very change it sought to accomplish when it served the Section 6 notice on BLET." Even though the Railroad had assured BLET that it would refrain from "substituting management employees for contract conductors[,]" it continued to do so. Because "[t]he Railroad failed to carry its burden to show that its position was arguably justified by the terms of the parties' collective-bargaining agreement[,]" the court vacated the injunction and remanded for the district court to dismiss the Railroad's complaint.