Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—D. Alaska: Commercial pilot has statutory right to individually arbitrate grievance before System Board, (Oct 21, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

A labor contract cannot nullify the employee’s statutory right under RLA Section 184 to individually arbitrate his claim before the System Board.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, a federal district court in Alaska determined that a commercial airline pilot, who rejected a union’s settlement of his discharge grievance, had an individual statutory right to access arbitration, with or without the union as a party under RLA. Citing the U.S. Supreme Corut decision in Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co. v. Burley, the court held that the collective bargaining agreement could not be effective to deprive employees of their individual rights. Moreover, the employee had not unequivocally waived his statutory right. However, the court granted the employer’s motion for partial summary judgment that the court-ordered arbitration would proceed with a System Board composed, in accordance with the CBA, of three members (Wood v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, No. 3:24-cv-00053-SLG (D. Alaska Oct. 16, 2025)).

The employer is a commercial air carrier headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska, and subject to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The Teamsters are the certified bargaining representative for the employer’s pilots. Teamsters Local 769 represents South Florida Teamsters, including Northern Air Cargo (NAC) pilots from Orlando to Key West.

The employee was hired as a commercial airline pilot in September 2018. During his employment, he was represented by the Teamsters through Local 769.

Terminations. The employer first terminated the employee’s employment in May 2020, after which he and the Teamsters filed two grievances. Pursuant to a settlement agreement reached in October 2021, the employer reinstated the employee.

On April 25, 2022, the employer again terminated the employee. On May 6, 2022, he and the union filed a grievance alleging that his termination was without just cause.

On September 19, 2023, Local 769 sent an email to the employee informing him that it had obtained “a favorable resolution” of his grievance that would provide him with a payment of $25,000 but did not provide for reinstatement. The employee rejected the proposed settlement. The Teamsters later advised the employee that it was declining to proceed with arbitration of his grievance.

Arbitration request. On March 6, 2024, the employee initiated this action, seeking an order compelling arbitration before an impartial system board of adjustment. The complaint alleged that airline employees have an individual statutory right under the RLA to access arbitration, with or without the union as a party.

Both the unions and the employer moved to dismiss. The court denied both motions to dismiss and held that airline employees do have a statutory right to pursue arbitration pursuant to 45 U.S.C. § 184. The court acknowledged that there is a circuit split on the issue, and that the Ninth Circuit has not yet addressed the question. But the court found persuasive caselaw from the Third and Sixth Circuits, in which those appeals courts emphasized the RLA’s purpose as support for their holdings that airline employees do have a right to compel access to their system board pursuant to Section 184. The court also rejected the employer’s assertion that there was no private cause of action under Section 184.

On January 21, 2025, the court denied the unions’ motion for reconsideration of the order denying their motion to dismiss.

Summary judgment. Following discovery, the employee timely filed his motion for summary judgment. The unions filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and the employer filed a partial motion for summary judgment.

The employee’s motion for summary judgment sought an order (1) “directing the Defendants to schedule a hearing before the Northern Air Cargo Pilots System Board of Adjustment for the purpose of arbitrating all issues” from the employee’s May 6, 2022 grievance, and (2) ordering that “the System Board consist of a single neutral appointed by the American Arbitration Association.”

Only the unions contested the employee’s request for an order compelling arbitration before the board of adjustment. Only the employer contested the employee’s request for a single neutral arbitrator.

Union control of grievance process. With respect to the unions’ motion for summary judgment, the court first agreed with the employee that it had already determined that he had a statutory right pursuant to Section 184 to arbitrate his grievance before the System Board.

Next, the unions asserted that the employee had waived his individual statutory right to arbitrate his grievance before the System Board because Local 769’s Bylaws and the Teamsters’ Constitution delegate to Local 769 the “final authority” to process his grievance as well as the right to “decline to process any such grievance.” The unions also contended that Section 20(E) of the CBA reinforced the conclusion that the employee “consented to the union’s exclusive control over grievance process.”

However, the court observed that the CBA is a contract between the employer and the unions, to which the employee is not a party. The U.S. Supreme Court in Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 733 (1945), held that the collective bargaining agreement could not be effective to deprive the employees of their individual rights. They are statutory rights, which he may exercise independently or authorize the union to exercise in his behalf. Thus, the court concluded that the CBA cannot nullify the employee’s statutory right under Section 184 to individually arbitrate his claim before the System Board.

Unions’ bylaws and constitution. With respect to the unions’ bylaws and constitution, the Supreme Court in Elgin held that the union’s regulations did not “unequivocally authorize[]” the union to settle claims or to act as an exclusive representative before the Board, and so could not be said to abrogate the employees’ individual statutory rights. The Supreme Court’s application of this “unequivocal” authorization standard was consistent with the general rule that a waiver of statutory rights cannot be inferred from general contractual provisions but must be explicitly stated and “clear and unmistakable” to be valid. In this case, the court found that the provisions of Local 769’s Bylaws and the Teamsters’ Constitution did not disclose a “clear and unmistakable” or intention to abrogate the employee’s statutory right to pursue arbitration individually, and so the employee retained that right.

Waiver. Further, the court rejected the unions’ contention that the employee waived his statutory right to arbitrate individually by initially participating in the grievance with the unions’ representation. Here, the employee was informed by the union of a settlement proposal, which he did not agree to, and the union declined to further pursue his grievance before the adjustment board. The employee’s claim is not about “his right to access the adjustment board pursuant to § 184, which he has not had the opportunity to do.” Accordingly, the employee may compel arbitration in from of the System Board because Section 184 creates an individual right to arbitrate and the employee had not unequivocally waived his statutory right.

Thus, the employee’s motion for summary judgment was granted insofar as he sought to arbitrate his claim individually before the System Board.

Single neutral arbitrator. On the other hand, the court granted the employer’s motion for partial summary judgment which challenged the employee’s request for arbitration before a single neutral arbitrator. Because the employee had abandoned this request, the court-ordered arbitration would proceed with a System Board composed in accordance with the CBA of three members—one chosen by the union, one chosen by the employer, and one neutral arbitrator.

The case is No. 3:24-cv-00053-SLG.

Judge: Gleason, S.

Attorneys: Sarah E. Josephson (Jermain, Dunnagan & Owens) for Jeremy Wood. D. Marcus Braswell, Jr. (Sugarman, Susskind, Braswell & Herrera) for International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Teamsters Local Union 769. Abdel Hamid Fakhoury (Ford Harrison) for Northern Air Cargo.

Companies: International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Teamsters Local Union 769; Northern Air Cargo

Cases: Labor UnionsMembers Arbitration ContractClaims AlaskaNews