Free Trial / Sign Up Products / Prices / Samples About Us / Contact FAQs Home
Latest employment law cases 
Summaries and links to full text
LawMemo - First in Employment Law Emailed directly to you
and online all the time
Latest Cases Advanced Search Law Firm Directory Arbitrator Directory Law School Directory Legal Resources / Memos
Employment Law Memo
Arbitration Law Memo
NLRB Law Memo
Employment Low Blog
Arbitration Law Blog
Employment Law 101
Articles
Supreme Court Cases
EEOC Info
NLRB Info

LawMemo Employment Law Blog 
All Archives    |    All Archives By Topic 
Also read LawMemo Arbitration Blog


« IRCA did not override wage claim | Main | FLSA at the Supreme Court »

Airline strike injunction affirmed
March 29, 2007 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

The injunction against a strike by the Association of Flight Attendants against Northwest Airlines has been upheld by the 2nd Circuit.

Northwest Airlines v. Assoc of Flight Attendants (2nd Cir 03/29/2007)

After Northwest went into bankruptcy it rejected its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the union and imposed new terms and conditions on the flight attendants. (That's allowed by the bankruptcy laws.)

The union wanted better terms, and threatened to strike.

So Northwest got a federal judge to issue a temporary injunction against a strike.

Today the 2nd Circuit upheld the temporary injunction after analyzing the Bankruptcy Code, the Railway Labor Act (RLA), and the Norris-LaGuardia Act.

In concluding that the strike could be enjoined, the court said: "(1) Northwest's rejection of its CBA after obtaining court authorization to do so under 11 U.S.C. § 1113 abrogated (without breaching) the existing collective-bargaining agreement between the AFA and Northwest, which thereafter ceased to exist; (2) Northwest's abrogation of the CBA necessarily terminated the status quo created by that agreement, after which termination both the RLA's explicit status quo provisions and the implicit status quo requirement of Section 2 (First) ceased to apply; but (3) the AFA's proposed strike would, at present, violate the union's independent duty under the RLA to "exert every reasonable effort to make ... [an] agreement[]," 45 U.S.C. § 152 (First), and thus may be enjoined."

My view: This is a much narrower reason than the reason used by the trial judge. The trial judge reasoned that any such work stoppage would cause irreparable harm and, at this juncture, violate the Railway Labor Act. The 2nd Circuit's reasoning suggests that the union might be able to strike if it first exerts "every reasonable effort" to reach an agreement.

LawMemo.Com


EEOC | NLRB | Supreme CourtEmployment Law BlogArbitration Blog | Employment Law 101

 
Google
 
Web www.LawMemo.com 
This form will search the LawMemo web site. It does not include the Caselaw Database.