International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. North American Airlines
Filed March 7, 2008
Cite as 05-17436

Injunctive Relief Denied

North American Airlines (NAA) employs approximately 600 employees, including approximately 120 pilots. NAA’s pilots were not represented by any union until January 2004. The National Mediation Board certified the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) to represent NAA’s pilots during collective bargaining.

NAA issued a memorandum informing its employees that it has developed a pilot scheduling guidelines aimed at cost saving. When NAA and IBT failed to reach an agreement regarding the matter, the former decided to change course and attempt to achieve the desired cost savings through other means. The announced changes include the following:

• Eight-percent wage reduction and the elimination of longevity increases for pilots


• Reduction in pilots’ minimum monthly guarantee from 67 to 60 hours, and


• Reduction in their overtime pay rate

Due to the above unilateral changes, IBT filed an action contending that the implementation of these changes violated NAA’s obligations under the Railway Labor Act. The action includes a prayer for order of rescission of said changes and an injunctive relief.

The Ninth Circuit Court (Court) delayed hearing the motion for preliminary injunctive relief until after the resolution of NAA’s motion to dismiss or transfer.

When the Court denied motion to dismiss or transfer this case and set the hearing on the IBT’s preliminary injunction, the parties inform the Court of their intention to present up to seven hours of live testimony at the motion hearing.

The Court, in its denial of the IBT’s request for injunctive relief, finds the following:

• Sec. 2, First of RLA, read in relation with other provisions of act, does not impose a status quo requirement which precludes the parties from unilaterally changing working conditions before a collective bargaining agreement has been formed even if negotiations have commenced.


• Where employees union and airline continued negotiations after airline changed working conditions, IBT could not establish that an injunction was "only practical, effective means of enforcing the duty to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements". Hence, is not entitled to injunctive relief.

Accordingly, the Court denies IBT’s request for injunctive relief.