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 & Trainmen (BLET)

In this amended opinion (see e-Journal # 59738 in the 4/29/15 edition for the original opinion), the court held that the district court erred by finding that the economic dispute between plaintiff-Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company (the Railroad) and defendant-BLET was a “minor dispute” under the RLA. Thus, it reversed that holding and vacated the portion of the preliminary injunction granting relief to the Railroad on the parties’ dispute over using supervisors as conductors, and remanded. The primary issue was the Railroad’s proposal to eliminate the “crew consist” provision, a portion of the scope rule of the Trainmen Agreement that required the railroad to assign a union conductor to all freight trains. 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 reversed the district court’s finding that the parties were engaged in a minor dispute, instead concluding that they were engaged in a “major” dispute under the RLA. “The scope rule of the Trainmen Agreement expressly requires the Railroad to assign a union conductor to every train. . . . 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. . . . Disputes about the making of collective bargaining agreements are major disputes.” Because the dispute was “major” the “Railroad was obligated to maintain the working conditions the Trainmen Agreement required—the assignment of at least one contract conductor to each train—until the parties concluded the RLA’s major dispute process. Instead, the Railroad implemented the changes it sought and violated the status quo.”