Aircraft Service Int'l v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, No. 12-36026 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseSection 152 First of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 152 First, imposes a duty on all carrier employees to engage in the Act's labor dispute resolution procedures before ceasing to perform their work. ASIG filed suit against the IBT, requesting a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a declaratory judgment for a permanent injunction to enjoin a strike at Sea-Tac airport as unlawful under the Act. Because the employees of ASIG were carrier employees, they must comply with the Act. Because they were subject to this obligation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the strike injunction. The injunction did not violate the employees' or other defendants' First Amendment rights; it furthered the important governmental interest of regulating the economic relationship between labor and management and was no greater than essential to the furtherance of that interest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Labor Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s issuance of a preliminary strike injunction brought under the Railway Labor Act against “carrier employees” of an aircraft service provider. The panel held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not withdraw jurisdiction from the district court to enjoin the strike, which grew out of a labor dispute, because the Railway Labor Act is recognized as an exception to the NLGA’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions. The panel concluded that the carrier employees had an enforceable duty under section 2 First of the RLA to diligently strive to make and maintain agreements and settle all disputes. The panel held that section 2 First does not merely set forth a policy and does not apply only to unionized carrier employees. The panel held that the employees’ decision to strike before appointing a representative and attempting to collectively bargain under the procedures of the RLA was a violation of their duty in section 2 First. Accordingly, the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction was proper. The panel held that the strike injunction was not overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. Given the district court’s reasonable finding that the balance of the equities favored the employer because permitting the strike would essentially shut down an airport, the panel held that preliminarily enjoining the employees’ strike was not an abuse of discretion. Dissenting, Judge M. Smith wrote that the injunction should be vacated because the employees violated no express provision of the RLA, and before seeking an injunction, the employer failed to satisfy the condition precedent in section 8 of the NLGA by failing first to make all reasonable effort to settle the parties’ dispute.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 12, 2014.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 10, 2015.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.