Latest news with #RailwayLaborAct
Epoch Times
27-05-2025
- Business
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court Will Not Hear Challenge to Fees Paid to Union by Non-Union Airline Staff
The U.S. Supreme Court on May 27 turned away a lawsuit that claimed a federal appeals court ruling jeopardizes airline employees' legal rights. The Supreme Court's new decision in Bahreman v. Allegiant Air LLC and Transport Workers Union of America Local 577 took the form of an unsigned The court did not explain its ruling. No justices dissented. Petitioner Ali Bahreman, represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, said in the The federal Railway Labor Act, which covers labor-management relations in the railroad and airline sectors, permits union security provisions that require workers in unionized workplaces to hand over union fees to retain their jobs. The provision in this case required that all flight attendants covered by the agreement had 'to financially support the union by paying agency fees, or lose their use of seniority for bidding on flight assignments, work schedules, and other employments, all awarded in order of seniority,' the petition said. Related Stories 2/19/2025 5/21/2025 Agency fees are what non-union members are required to pay to cover the union's expenses in representing them in the collective bargaining process and administering collective bargaining agreements. Those who pay agency fees do not receive the same union-provided benefits as dues-paying union members. Bidding refers to the process in which flight attendants indicate their work preferences. For example, some may prefer to work on short trips while others may want longer flights. They enter their preferences into a computer system, which then allocates work assignments while taking into account the attendants' seniority and other factors. Bahreman was not a Transport Workers Union member and did not financially support the union while he worked as an Allegiant flight attendant, the petition said. In 2019, Allegiant and the union suspended Bahreman's bidding privileges because he hadn't paid agency fees. The airline ignored his seniority when it developed his work schedule, and he was no longer able to participate in bidding for contract benefits that took into account his seniority, the petition said. 'Placing Bahreman at the bottom of the seniority list prevented him from using his contractual seniority to bid on more lucrative flight assignments, obtain valuable benefits to which he would have otherwise been entitled, and plan his work schedule,' the petition said. In March 2020, Bahreman sued the airline and the union in federal district court in Nevada, arguing that the agency fee requirement violated the Railway Labor Act. The petition said the act prohibits 'influenc[ing] or coerc[ing] employees in an effort to induce them to join or remain … members of any labor organization,' with one exception. The act allows unions and employers 'to make agreements, requiring as a condition of continued employment, that … all employees shall become members of the labor organization representing their craft or class,' the petition said. The union must also follow a duty of fair representation, which 'require[s] the union … to represent non-union … members of the craft without hostile discrimination, fairly, impartially, and in good faith,' the Supreme Court ruled in Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co. (1944), the petition said. Bahreman argued that the agency fee requirement violated the Railway Labor Act and discriminated against non-members of the union. On April 28, Allegiant The petition said the district court dismissed the case in August 2023, finding the agency fee requirement was not a union security agreement because 'it did not provide for termination as the consequence of not paying agency fees.' The court also determined that the union had not violated the duty of fair representation by negotiating and enforcing the requirement, the petition said. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in December 2024. The appeals court held that 'compelling employees to financially support a union or lose their seniority benefits and work bidding privileges is not coercive,' and that the union had not violated the duty of fair representation because 'it believed that the Agency Fee Requirement treated union members and non-members the same,' the petition said.
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NJ Transit strike continues as negotiations may resume this weekend
The traveling calculus for New Jersey's straphangers has made difficult commuting on a normal day even more challenging without the option of NJ Transit train service, which came to a halt in the wee morning hours of Friday, May 16 as locomotive engineers walked off the job to protest stalled negotiations over a five-year-old expired contract. Tom Haas, general chairman of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, said agency officials 'chose to walk away' from the negotiating table in the hours before the strike deadline, while Gov. Phil Murphy and NJ Transit President and CEO Kris Kolluri have said that a deal is 'imminently achievable.' Yet both sides spent much of the first day of the strike cheerleading their positions with press conferences and picket lines. Negotiations to end the strike appeared to be set to occur over the weekend. 'It's a mess of their own making," Murphy said, referring to the locomotive engineers, from the Aberdeen-Matawan train station May 16. "It's a slap in the face of every commuter and worker who relies on transit." Mark Wallace, the national president for the BLET who authorized the strike for his members, said, 'our members remain united and solidified,' and they are awaiting a call from NJ Transit to return to the negotiating table. 'We exercised our right under the Railway Labor Act to self-help and we're out there on the picket line essentially voicing the message that we're underpaid and NJ Transit to pay us a fair wage, but they refuse,' Wallace said. NJ Transit has about 172,000 daily weekday rail commuters, but the effects of the strike will be felt by the roughly 350,000 NJ Transit riders across the system as buses are squeezed with more commuters, light rail trains get packed, and as people seek alternatives on private buses, ferries, PATH or Amtrak. This is the second rail strike in the 42 years that NJ Transit has provided rail service. The first one came in 1983, the year the agency took over a variety of once-bankrupt railroads, and lasted 34 days. NJ Transit's contingency plan to address the strike goes into effect Monday, May 19, and includes beefing up existing bus routes along rail routes and adding four new park-and-ride bus service at Hamilton Train Station, Secaucus Junction, PNC Bank Arts Center and Woodbridge Center — but only on weekdays. Newark Light Rail service will also be expanded. LIVE: Complete coverage as New Jersey commuters sound off on start of NJ Transit strike Straphangers had to weigh a variety of factors — like increased costs, transfers and the extra time traveling — as they figured out how to navigate a new commute sans rail. Cynthia Battle gazed at the screen of schedules at Newark Penn Station as she considered travel adjustments. "This is the first day so I'm trying to figure it out," Battle said. "I travel to Plainfield and the city a lot," Battle continued. "I'm having to call a Lyft which is costing me $50, whereas the train would cost $10. As for the New York trip, I have to cancel that.' Daniel, who did not provide his last name, was frazzled by the options he had at Newark Penn — none of them great. 'I don't know what's going on, it's crazy," he said. "I have to change multiple buses and it's an hour extra. I'm late for work.' Laura Kounev of Summit usually took NJ Transit to work in the city but switched to PATH. It typically takes her an hour and 15 minutes door-to-door but May 16 will be over two hours as her husband got stuck in traffic on the way to pick her up, she said. Live Schmidt, who works at Google and typically takes the train from Montclair to New York City, had to go into the office May 16 for an event but ended up missing it. Schmidt intended to take an Uber but several drivers canceled on him causing him to miss the event and decided to just head back home. Still, he said he can adapt to the lack of trains. "It's gonna be OK for the foreseeable future for me," Schmidt said. "But I can imagine others probably are feeling this stress a lot more." NJ Transit and the engineers appear to be waiting for Sunday, May 18 to get back to the negotiating table. Bargaining effectively ended about two hours before the strike began, which Kolluri said was a mutual decision after they reached an impasse despite some progress made in the 11-hour negotiating session Thursday, May 15. The BLET 'put forward a proposal that seems fair to (them) but it doesn't solve our fundamental issue of fiscal responsiveness,' Kolluri said. 'I said, 'Why don't we do this, you take time to think about it, we'll take time to think about it, and then we'll continue talking to meet a solution.'' He added: 'We are making progress and we'll get there.' The National Mediation Board — an independent Washington D.C.-based agency that handles labor negotiations in the railroad and airline industries — has been involved in recent bargaining sessions with NJ Transit and the BLET since the two sides were summoned by the board for a status meeting May 12. A member of the NMB suggested gathering Sunday. The NMB, Congress or the president could intervene at any time with a wide range of tools to bring the parties together, impose a contract or force the engineers back to work, but so far those options haven't been tapped. Bill Dwyer, a former head of labor relations at PSE&G and professor at the Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations, said 'it's going to take a lot of creativity' to get to a deal. 'Mediators can do some pretty great things, given a chance. On the other hand, they've been involved with the mediation board now for a long time and they've not made a deal yet,' Dwyer said. Editorial: NJ Transit officials and BLET must resume negotiations to end the strike — now Need to get to the city?: A strike halts NJ Transit trains. Here are other ways to get to NYC The main dispute in negotiations between NJ Transit and BLET has been over wages. NJ Transit offered the engineers wage increases consistent with what it has offered the 14 other unions the agency bargains with, a concept known as pattern bargaining. But the engineers say they should make more to make them competitive with locomotive engineers at other nearby railroads, or else some will leave for those outfits, as they already have this year. Kolluri said if the agency met the union's latest wage demands, it would have to offer more pay to its other unions because of 'me too' clauses, which could force drastic fare hikes, the need for a significant increase in the corporate transit fee or draconian levels of cuts in service to cover the costs. Haas said the union offered changes to healthcare plans or work rules to lower costs in their proposal and work around those clauses, but NJ Transit "chose to ignore that opportunity.' NJ Transit engineers are currently paid a starting base hourly rate of $39.78. Here is how other nearby railroads are compensated: Amtrak: $55.44 per hour. Long Island Rail Road: $49.92 per hour. Metro-North: $57.20 per hour. SEPTA: $42.17 per hour. PATH: $50.01 per hour. A tentative agreement from March, which was voted down by 87% of the union's voting members, would have brought the starting base pay rate to $40.58 per hour, and here's how it would have increased in the contract when accounting for additional pay in the contract. The agreement included two contract periods (July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2024, and July 1, 2024, through July 1, 2027): July 1, 2020: a 2% increase to $40.58 per hour. July 1, 2021: a 2.25% increase to $42.31 per hour. Jan. 1, 2022: a 2.25% increase to $43.26 per hour. July 1, 2022: a 2.50% increase to $44.34 per hour. July 1, 2023: a 3% increase to $45.67 per hour. July 1, 2024: a 3% increase to $47.03 per hour. July 1, 2025: a 3% increase to $49.82 per hour. July 1, 2026: a 3% increase to $51.32 per hour. July 1, 2027: a 4% increase to $54.86 per hour. These negotiations are 'not only historic, but it's also very unusual,' Dwyer said, because 'it's almost unheard of' to sign a tentative contract only to have it overwhelmingly rejected. 'That tells me something is really amiss here in terms of the union leadership and the membership,' Dwyer said. Asked about this, Haas emphasized their union is a democratic organization that allows members to make their voices head via voting. 'We felt it was a deal worth putting to the membership,' Haas said, but 'that agreement simply did not meet the needs of engineers.' Many state elected officials called on both sides to get back to the table and reach an agreement as soon as possible. 'So many residents are scrambling to find ways to get to work and back home to pick up their kids. This is a mess,' U.S. Sen. Andy Kim said. 'I have made clear to NJ Transit and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen that they need urgent negotiations to continue immediately.' State Senate Majority Leader Teresa Ruiz is "severely concerned about the consequences of this strike on our residents and our businesses." "Workers, students and seniors who cannot afford a ride-share or taxi will bear the brunt of this system breakdown and miss a day's pay, a medical appointment, or valuable time in the classroom," she said. "The longer this strike continues, the more it will harm our economy and deepen the very inequities public transit is meant to address." Assemblywoman Nancy Munoz, a Republican from Summit, blamed the governor for what she called a 'full-blown train wreck' that is punishing riders for policy decisions of his administration. That includes a 15% fare hike last year, annual 3% fare increases starting this July, and the controversial decision to move the agency's headquarters to an expensive new space despite cheaper options, including renovating a building the agency owns. 'Time and again, when NJ Transit fails, it's the riders who pay the price,' Munoz said. 'This contract dispute should have been taken care of his first term. Once again it's the commuters who are suffering.' This article originally appeared on NJ Transit strike continues as negotiations may resume this weekend
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge went too far in ordering Southwest lawyers to take religious liberty training, 5th Circuit holds
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. A federal judge did not have the authority to order in-house attorneys for Southwest Airlines to attend a religious liberty training as part of a contempt sanction against the company for allegedly violating his judgment, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held May 8. In a mixed result for the airline and the plaintiff, a former flight attendant who was fired for violating Southwest's harassment policies, the 5th Circuit vacated the judge's contempt order because it was 'plainly not the least-restrictive means of remedying Southwest's non-compliance' with the judgment. The training order also 'constituted a punitive remedy' that exceeded the judge's civil contempt authority, the 5th Circuit said. Separately, the court reversed in part a jury's finding that Southwest violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff's retaliation and interference claims under the Railway Labor Act. Separately, it affirmed judgment against the plaintiff's union while vacating a permanent injunction against the union. The reversal of Judge Brantley Starr's 2023 contempt order is a notable one in light of the recent evolution of religious discrimination case law. The plaintiff in Carter v. Southwest Airlines Co. alleged that Southwest failed to comply with the order — which directed the company to inform flight attendants that it 'may not discriminate' against them for their religious practices and belief — by instead issuing a statement that said the company 'does not discriminate' against employees because of such beliefs or practices. Southwest also published a memo in which it criticized the plaintiff's conduct and expressed disappointment with the judgment. Starr sided with the plaintiff and ordered Southwest attorneys to take a religious liberty training offered by the Christian advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom because such training represented the 'least restrictive means' of achieving compliance with the court's order. The 5th Circuit disagreed, writing that the proposed training encompassed topics not relevant to compliance with the judgment and 'exceeded remedial bounds' governing civil contempt sanctions. 'Courts are tasked with resolving limited questions and administering justice to the parties before them,' the 5th Circuit said. 'But when a court's contempt sanction in a civil matter is both overbroad in scope and undoubtedly punitive in nature, the judiciary risks appearing contemptuous like the contemnor.' Training orders have been issued by courts in other contexts, however. In 2023, a federal judge ordered an assisted living facility owner to attend an anti-retaliation training after allegedly threatening to fire workers who cooperated in a federal labor investigation. Sign in to access your portfolio
Epoch Times
25-04-2025
- Business
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court Urged to Take Up Case About Non-Union Members' Rights
A flight attendant told the Supreme Court in a new filing that a federal appeals court ruling jeopardizes airline employees' legal rights. The Supreme Court docketed the flight attendant's petition on April 23. Petitioner Ali Bahreman, represented by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, is suing the respondents, Allegiant Air and the Transport Workers Union of America Local 577. In 2017, Allegiant and the union added a so-called union security provision—in this case, an agency fee requirement—to their collective bargaining agreement, according to the The Railway Labor Act, which covers labor-management relations in the railroad and airline sectors, permits union security provisions, which force workers in unionized workplaces to hand over union fees to keep their jobs. The provision required that all flight attendants covered by the agreement had 'to financially support the union by paying agency fees, or lose their use of seniority for bidding on flight assignments, work schedules, and other employments, all awarded in order of seniority,' the petition said. Related Stories 8/29/2024 10/18/2021 Agency fees are what non-union members pay to cover the union's expenses in representing them in the collective bargaining process and administering collective bargaining agreements. Those who pay agency fees do not receive the same union-provided benefits as dues-paying union members. Bidding refers to the process in which flight attendants indicate their work preferences. For example, some may prefer short trips while others may want to work on longer flights. They enter their preferences into a computer system, which then allocates work assignments while taking into account the attendants' seniority and other factors. Bahreman was not a TWU member and did not financially support the union while he worked as an Allegiant flight attendant, the petition said. In 2019, Allegiant and the union suspended Bahreman's bidding privileges because he hadn't paid agency fees. The airline ignored his seniority when it developed his work schedule, and he was no longer able to participate in bidding for contract benefits that took into account his seniority. 'Placing Bahreman at the bottom of the seniority list prevented him from using his contractual seniority to bid on more lucrative flight assignments, obtain valuable benefits to which he would have otherwise been entitled, and plan his work schedule,' the petition said. In March 2020, Bahreman sued the airline and the union in federal district court in Nevada, arguing that the agency fee requirement violated the Railway Labor Act. The petition said the act prohibits 'influenc[ing] or coerc[ing] employees in an effort to induce them to join or remain … members of any labor organization,' with one exception. The act allows unions and employers 'to make agreements, requiring as a condition of continued employment, that … all employees shall become members of the labor organization representing their craft or class,' the petition said. The union must also follow a duty of fair representation, which 'require[s] the union … to represent non-union … members of the craft without hostile discrimination, fairly, impartially, and in good faith,' the Supreme Court ruled in Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co. (1944), the petition said. Bahreman argued that the agency fee requirement violated the act and discriminated against non-members of the union. In August 2023, the district court dismissed the case, finding that the agency fee requirement was not a union security agreement because 'it did not provide for termination as the consequence of not paying agency fees.' The court also determined that the union had not violated the duty of fair representation by negotiating and enforcing the requirement, the petition said. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in December 2024. The circuit court held that 'compelling employees to financially support a union or lose their seniority benefits and work bidding privileges is not coercive,' and that the union had not violated the duty of fair representation because 'it believed that the Agency Fee Requirement treated union members and non-members the same.' The circuit court denied rehearing in January 2025, the petition said. Bahreman's case 'shows how deep the rabbit-hole of union boss legal privileges goes,' National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said in a 'The Ninth Circuit's decision turns the U.S. Supreme Court's 'duty of fair representation' on its head, and exposes the underlying constitutional tensions that the Court identified' in its 1944 ruling in Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co. 'Originally created in Steele as a bulwark against union bosses wielding their monopoly representation and forced dues powers to discriminate, the Ninth Circuit's reinterpretation of the [duty of fair representation] doctrine allows union officials to engage in discrimination to coerce fee payment from union dissidents.' The Epoch Times contacted the airline and the union for comment but received no reply by publication time.
CBS News
17-04-2025
- Business
- CBS News
NJ Transit train engineers reject labor deal, raising potential for strike
NJ Transit train engineers have rejected a labor agreement with management, raising the potential for a strike or a lockout next month. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen on Tuesday rejected the March deal by a margin of 87%, the union said in a statement. The Railway Labor Act permits the workers to strike or NJ Transit's management to lock workers out as soon as May 15, according to the union. "Our members are angry," said union General Chairman Tom Haas. "I, along with other NJ Transit engineers, have kept the trains moving but we have gone without a raise since 2019, during a period of high inflation and throughout the pandemic that claimed some of our coworkers." NJ Transit President and CEO Kris Kolluri said in a statement he was disappointed the agreement was not ratified by members and that he was committed to returning to the bargaining table. "My focus remains on reaching a fair and sustainable agreement that works for everyone and ensures NJ TRANSIT can continue to provide the reliable service our customers count on," Kolluri said. A message seeking comment with Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy, whose administration oversees the agency, was also left Wednesday. Details about the agreement were murky. A statement released at the time of the agreement cited a "reasonable wage increase" for the union's members, a well as the resolution of a long-standing grievance. Kolluri started in January as NJ Transit's top executive. Last summer, then-President Joe Biden signed an executive order creating a board to resolve the dispute. At the time, NJ Transit said a strike could be possible as soon as March 2025 . NJ Transit operates buses and rail in the state, providing an estimated 925,000 weekday trips, including into New York City. The labor dispute goes back to 2019, when the engineers' contract expired.
