Association of Flight Attendants v. Mesa Air Group, Inc.
Filed June 1, 2009
Cite as 07-17232

Changing Flight Schedules is a Minor dispute under RLA

Mesa Airlines and Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) entered into two collective bargaining agreements (CBA).

The parties agreed that the two CBAs would stand upon their expiration until they come up with a new CBA pursuant to the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Upon expiry of the CBAs, the parties negotiated to replace them under an RLA-mandated process.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) implemented the Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements (FAR) which limited the working hours for flight crewmembers and flight attendants. Under the old CBAs, Mesa scheduled its flight attendants according to Pilot FARs.

While negotiating for a new CBA, AFA proposed to Mesa the incorporation of specific duty time and rest provisions in the contract. Mesa rejected such proposal instead; it unilaterally adjusted the scheduling for flight attendants according to Flight Attendant FARs rather than to Pilot FARs.

Subsequently, a dispute arose over the application of FAA regulations concerning the flight attendant’s schedule.

AFA filed a case to prevent Mesa from implementing such schedule until bargaining. It argued that unilaterally changing the working conditions was a major dispute under the RLA. Consequently, AFA may seek an injunction order.

Mesa filed a motion to reconsider after its motion to dismiss was denied.

The district court granted AFA’s motion for preliminary injunction. The court ruled that the disagreement was a major dispute hence, granting a preliminary injunction was proper.

Mesa appealed such decision.

On appeal, the United States Appeal Court ruled that changing the applicable FAA regulations designed for flight attendants from Pilot FARs to Flight Attendant FARs was a minor dispute under the RLA.

Consequently, the exclusive remedy was binding arbitration because Mesa had the burden to show that its action was “arguably justified” by expired CBA.

Thus, the court vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded to the district court with directions to dismiss the same for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.