The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, by a 2-1
vote, reversed the judgement of the District Court which held that the BMWE's dispute with
the carriers over the payment of travel allowances was a major dispute.
All three judges agreed that if you looked only at the plain language of Article XIV of
the Agreement, the dispute is major. In the decision the majority stated, "we would
hold the railroads' view 'frivolous or obviously insubstantial' and affirm the district
court--if the act of interpretation were to stop at the four corners of the
Agreement." But the majority held that they "must" look at evidence outside
the agreement even if the agreement language is clear.
The dissenting judge stated in his dissent, "Article XIV makes no distinction between
employees who travel with a 'district gang' and those who travel with a regional and
system gang.' Either type of gang can travel considerable distances as the majority notes
and as the record amply demonstrates. ... On this record, I agree with the district court
that the railroads are trying to obtain a new and materially different travel allowance in
the agreement..."
In early January the BMWE petitioned the court for a rehearing en banc (a request
that all sitting judges on the Seventh Circuit hear the appeal). The petition stays the
effectiveness of the circuit court's decision until it rules on the petition. |
