Air Line Pilots Association, International v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.

898 F.2d 1393 133 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3009 , 114 Lab.Cas. P 12,039 AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 87-4167. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 3, 1988. Withdrawn from Submission Dec. 2, 1988. Resubmitted Sept. 29, 1989. Decided March 14, 1990. Jerry D. Anker, Air Line Pilots Association, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellant. John F. Aslin, Perkins Coie, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Before NELSON, BOOCHEVER and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. NELSON, Circuit Judge: 1 Appellant Air Line Pilots Association ("ALPA" or "Union"), which represents Alaska Airlines ("Alaska") pilots in collective bargaining negotiations, seeks to challenge respondent's implementation of a new employee drug testing program. The district court denied ALPA's request for an injunction, finding that the dispute was a "minor" one under the Railway Labor Act ("the Act"), 45 U.S.C. Secs. 151-188 , and was therefore outside the scope of federal jurisdiction. In denying the injunction, the court also decided…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I dissent from the majority opinion because it characterizes the decision on whether a dispute is “minor,” under the Railway Labor Act (the “RLA”), as a decision on the merits. This decision is clearly jurisdictional, not a decision on the merits. Once the district court determined, as a matter of law, that the dispute was minor, the district court properly held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of appellants’ claim or to grant injunctive relief under the RLA. The district court also properly denied appellant’s request for an injunction based on traditional, equitable principles. Accordingly, I would affirm the district court’s decision in all respects.

I. Appellant’s Two Theoretical Bases For Relief.

Plaintiff-appellant Air Line Pilots Association (“ALPA”) based its motion for a preliminary injunction on two alternate theories. First, ALPA argued that the controversy regarding the new drug testing program is a “major dispute,” under the RLA, and that the RLA requires Alaska Airlines, Inc. (“Alaska”) to bargain with ALPA before implementing the program. If ALPA were to prevail on this theory, the RLA would authorize…

Appellant Air Line Pilots Association (“ALPA” or “Union”), which represents Alaska Airlines (“Alaska”) pilots in collective bargaining negotiations, seeks to challenge respondent’s implementation of a new employee drug testing program. The district court denied ALPA’s request for an injunction, finding that the dispute was a “minor” one under the Railway Labor Act (“the Act”), 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-188 , and was therefore outside the scope of federal jurisdiction. In denying the injunction, the court also decided the merits of the case and entered summary judgment for the airline. While we agree that the denial of injunctive relief was proper, we do not believe that the case was ripe for summary judgment. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the injunction, vacate the entry of summary judgment, and remand for further development of the factual record.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Since 1976, Alaska Airlines has, pursuant to company regulations, prohibited all illegal drug use by its employees, whether on or off company premises. Since 1947, all collective bargaining agreements between ALPA and Alaska have included a provision requiring pilots to undergo a physical examination at…