Tag Archives: RLA

Weingarten Rights do not apply to railroad employees

Employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) have a right to have a union representative or co-worker present during an investigatory interview with management when the employee reasonably believes that the interview might result in disciplinary action.  This is generally described as the employee’s “Weingarten Rights,” referring to a case decided by the Supreme Court where it was held that denial of a request to have a representative present during such an interview was an unfair labor practice. NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975).  Since railroad employees are covered by the Railway Labor Act, not the NLRA, do they have the same right to demand that a representative accompany them to an interview conducted by a management official?

Unfortunately, the answer is no.  The reason for the difference can be found in the text of the statutes.  Section 7 of the NLRA gives non-railroad employees the right “to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection…” 29 U.S.C. §157.  The Supreme Court held in Weingarten that the request for a representative during an interview with management is considered “concerted activit[y] for…mutual aid or protection.”  To put it simply, the right to have a union representative present while you are being interrogated by your supervisor protects not only you, but the entire group of people represented by the union.  The language quoted prohibits a company from interfering with that right.

The language of the Railway Labor Act is more limited, however.  Section 2, Fourth of the RLA provides that, “[e]mployees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing…No [railroad], its officers or agents, shall deny or in any way question the right of its employees to join, organize, or assist in organizing the [union] of their choice, and it shall be unlawful for any [railroad] to interfere in any way with the organization of its employees…” 45 U.S.C. §152 Fourth.  Notably missing from this section is a phrase comparable to “other mutual aid or protection.”  The RLA’s focus is on protecting employees’ rights to select and form a union, and collectively bargain with the railroad through that union.  The right to have a representative present during an interview with management is not covered by those rights.

Although such a right is not legally protected, railroad employees should always show up at investigatory interviews with a union representative or co-employee.  A railroad official will be less likely to try to harass or intimidate if a witness is present, and he or she likely won’t know whether Weingarten rights apply or not.  If the railroad official insists on speaking to the employee alone, however, the employee should not be insubordinate or refuse to cooperate.  Get good advice before the interview occurs with your union representative, and if necessary, handle the interview alone.

Comments { 0 }

Presidential Emergency Board No. 243

A potential nationwide rail strike was halted yesterday by President Obama, who signed an Executive Order creating Presidential Emergency Board 243 (“PEB”) pursuant to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”).  The dispute involves 11 rail labor unions and the National Carriers’ Conference Committee, which represents CSX, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, Kansas City Southern, Soo Line, Union Pacific and other railroads.  The parties failed to reach agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement through negotiations and were permitted to go on strike or engage in a lock-out beginning October 7, 2011.  The President’s creation of a PEB prevents such action under the terms of the RLA.  President Obama appointed five members to the PEB – Ira F. Jaffe (Chair), Roberta Golick, Joshua M. Javits, Gil Vernon, and Arnold Zack.

Section 10  of the RLA allows the President to create a PEB when a dispute that has not been resolved by the parties “threaten[s] substantially to interrupt interstate commerce” to such a degree as to threaten “to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service.”  The RLA provides that the PEB is to investigate the dispute and make a report to the President within 30 days after the PEB’s appointment.  During this 30 day period, the parties must not change the conditions of employment out of which the dispute arose (including no strike or lock-out).  The report created by the PEB is non-binding, and is meant to narrow the issues and allow the parties to reach a voluntary settlement.  However, if the parties fail to reach agreement, it is expected that Congress will step in and pass legislation imposing the terms of a new collective bargaining agreement.  This prospect is a crapshoot for both sides, so there is a great incentive for them to reach agreement.

In 2006, I attended a rail law seminar at which Joshua Javits (a member of PEB 243) presented a paper titled, “A Neutral’s Perspective on Presidential Emergency Boards.”  His presentation perhaps gives us a glimpse into what the parties should expect in the report of the PEB.  He wrote:

“Neutrals like to avoid legislating new terms of an agreement for the parties.  Neutrals are more comfortable providing guidance to the parties rather than imposing new terms on unwilling parties.  Therefore, emergency boards tend to use a light touch.  They recognize and encourage voluntary resolution through collective bargaining and defer to the parties’ power and interests…As Harry Rissetto, an eminent RLA practitioner, [said] the ‘mantra’ of the emergency board is, ‘If you can’t get it in bargaining, you won’t get it before an emergency board.’  Like doctors, the first principal of emergency board members is to ‘do no harm.’”

I wish the best of luck to all the brothers and sisters in rail labor involved in this dispute, and hope that a favorable resolution can be reached.  If the current Congress gets involved, I’m not so sure that it will use such a “light touch.”

 

Comments { 1 }