Aircraft Serv. Int’l, Inc. v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, No. 12-36026 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseAircraft Service International, Inc. (“Employer”) sought an obtained a preliminary injunction from the district court prohibiting Employer’s employees from striking at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order and vacated the preliminary injunction, holding (1) the district court erred in failing to consider whether, prior to seeking a preliminary injunction, Employer had made “every reasonable effort to settle [the labor] dispute either by negotiation or with the aid of any available governmental machinery of mediation or voluntary arbitration,” as required by Section 8 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and the record lacked any evidence that Employer did so; and (2) the Railway Labor Act creates an exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act, but this exception does not include Section 8.
Court Description: Labor Law. The en banc court reversed and vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction under the Railway Labor Act against a strike by aircraft fuelers at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. The en banc court held that the district court erred in failing to consider whether, prior to seeking a preliminary injunction, the fuelers’ employer had made “every reasonable effort to settle [the labor] dispute either by negotiation or with the aid of any available governmental machinery of mediation or voluntary arbitration,” as required by Section 8 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. In addition, the record lacked any evidence that the employer had done so. The en banc court held that the Railway Labor Act creates an exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act, but this exception is limited and does not include Section 8. AIRCRAFT SERVICES INT’L V. WORKING WASH. 3 Concurring, Judge Berzon, joined by Judges Paez and Graber, agreed with the majority that the district court erred in granting an injunction, as the employer had not complied with its duty under Section 8 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Judge Berzon wrote to explain that, in her view, even if the employer had complied with its duty under Section 8, it still would not have been entitled to an injunction because the labor dispute was not governed by the dispute resolution provisions of the Railway Labor Act. Dissenting, Judge Kleinfeld, joined by Judges O’Scannlain, Silverman, and Tallman, wrote that the district court’s order should be affirmed because the strike was barred by the Railway Labor Act, and the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act did not apply.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 10, 2014.
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.