Unpublished Dispositionusair, Inc., Plaintiff-appellant, v. National Mediation Board; International Brotherhood Ofteamsters, Airline Division, Defendants-appellees.usair, Inc., Plaintiff-appellee, v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Airline Division,defendant-appellant,andnational Mediation Board, Defendant, 894 F.2d 403 (4th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 894 F.2d 403 (4th Cir. 1989) Argued: Dec. 4, 1989. Decided: Dec. 8, 1989

Richard C. Hotvedt (Thomas C. Reinert, Jr., Janice Mulligan Lauroesch, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; Betty Leach Hawkins, USAir, Inc., on brief), for appellant.

Deborah Ruth Kant (William Kanter, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, on brief); Patrick J. Riley (James T. Grady, General Counsel, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, on brief), for appellees.

Before MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge, BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge, and JAMES H. MICHAEL, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:


USAir, Inc., appeals an order of the district court dismissing its complaint that alleged that the National Mediation Board unlawfully certified the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as bargaining representatives of the airline's fleet service employees. The Teamsters cross-appeal, assigning error to the district court's refusal to require USAir to furnish addresses of the employees in the bargaining unit and access to the employees at the company's premises.

We expedited the appeals. Upon consideration of the record, briefs, and oral argument, we affirm for reasons adequately stated by the district court, USAir, Inc. v. National Mediation Bd., 711 F. Supp. 285 (E.D. Va. 1989); see also Zantop Int'l Airlines v. National Mediation Bd., 732 F.2d 517 (6th Cir. 1984); Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. National Mediation Bd., 380 F.2d 624 (D.C. Cir. 1967).

The clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith.

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.