On March 10, 2015, in Aircraft Service Int'l, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 117, a split en banc panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit joined several other circuits that have held that a party seeking to enjoin a strike under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) must first comply with Section 8 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act (NLA), including by making every reasonable effort to settle the dispute. The Ninth Circuit reversed and vacated a declaratory judgment and injunction granted to the employer facing a potential strike by nonunion airport employees that a Ninth Circuit panel previously affirmed (see Legal Update, RLA Requires Non-unionized Carrier Employees to Strive to Settle Disputes Before Striking; Strike Injunction Proper: Ninth Circuit). The majority of the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the RLA and Section 8 of the NLA serve similar purposes and each encourage non-judicial processes to resolve labor disputes that could interrupt key transportation services. (Aircraft Serv. Int'l, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters Local 117, No. 12-36026, (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2015).)

Aircraft Service International Inc., an airplane refueler at the Seattle-Tacoma airport in Washington, in September 2012, suspended one of its non-union employees (Popescu), purportedly for workplace misconduct. Believing that the suspension was due to Popescu having testified before a regulatory body regarding safety issues affecting the company's fuelers, Popescu and several of other employees threatened to go on strike unless Popescu was reinstated. The dispute escalated, and in late September 2012, the employees voted overwhelmingly to strike. In early October, the employees publicized their strike vote through a local workers' rights coalition. Aircraft Service filed suit in a district court seeking declaratory judgement and to enjoin the potential strike as a violation of the RLA.

The RLA, which covers rail and air carriers and related enterprises, prohibits so-called "strike-first" tactics and is designed to minimize work stoppages that could interfere with the flow of commerce (45 U.S.C. §§ 151-164; 45 U.S.C. §§ 181-188). Section 4 of the NLA insulates labor disputes from equitable actions by prohibiting federal courts from issuing injunctions that preclude individuals from refusing to work (29 U.S.C. § 104). Section 8 of the NLA divests federal district courts of jurisdiction to enter injunctions concerning labor disputes unless, among other things, the petitioning party has "clean hands" and offers evidence that it has made “every reasonable effort" to settle the dispute through negotiation, mediation or arbitration (29 U.S.C. § 108).

A district court enjoined the Aircraft Service fuelers' potential strike as an RLA violation, and held that the strike would violate the RLA, finding that the RLA:

The Teamsters and the employees appealed.

The Ninth Circuit majority:

Three circuit judges concurred with the majority opinion but added that even if Aircraft Service had complied with Section 8 of the NLA, the district court should not have granted the declaratory judgment or injunction under the RLA for the additional reason that it was not an RLA case. Those judges reasoned that the employees were:

Four dissenting circuit judges would have affirmed the district court's judgment and injunction, having found that:

With its decision in Aircraft Service International, the Ninth Circuit enters the fray of a minor circuit split on the extent to which the RLA trumps the NLA when parties seek injunctions in rail and air labor disputes. The Ninth Circuit joins the plurality of circuits treating Section 8 of the NLA differently from Section 4 of the NLA when parties seek RLA injunctions. The case serves as a reminder that the NLA remains vital and may continue to impact RLA-governed disputes even though the RLA trumps Section 4 of the NLA.

Employers seeking injunctions under the RLA (particularly in circuits that align with the Ninth Circuit's rulings in this case) should be aware of Section 8 of the NLA and consider exploring potential negotiated, mediated or arbitrated resolutions to a labor dispute before seeking an injunction in court.