United Transportation Union, et al v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 11-35714 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThis case concerned allegations of corruption by a representative of the Railway during mandatory arbitration of a dispute relating to the discharge of a Railway employee, who was represented by the Union. The Union subsequently filed a petition for review in federal district court under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 153(q). The district court granted the Railway's motion to dismiss. The court held that the district court erred with respect to jurisdiction because it failed to properly apply section 153(q). The district court also erred with respect to the merits because it evaluated the Railway's conduct as fraud - not corruption, and failed to draw inferences in the light most favorable to the Union. The court reversed and remanded the case to allow the Union to attempt to prove its allegations of corruption by clear and convincing evidence.
Court Description: Labor Law. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of a union’s petition for review under the Railway Labor Act of the arbitration decisions of two Public Law Boards concerning a dispute regarding a railway employee’s discharge. The panel held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 45 U.S.C. § 153(q) First, to review the order of the first Public Law Board, which dismissed the case without prejudice after rejecting the union’s allegations of fraud and corruption in connection with the recusal of a neutral Board member who had issued a draft decision ordering the employee’s reinstatement. The panel held that the union stated a claim for corruption as to the order of the first Board by alleging that the railway’s Board representative had made an economic threat against the neutral member if she did not change the outcome of the draft decision. The union also stated a claim for corruption as to the order of the second Board, which issued a final award in favor of the railway, by alleging that the second Board’s neutral member had been made aware of the prior threat. The panel remanded the case to the district court to allow the union to attempt to prove its allegations of corruption by clear and convincing evidence.
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.