Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—E.D.N.Y.: Airline employee lacked individual right to arbitrate claim without union participation, (Dec 11, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The court agreed with the defendants that no statutory right exists to permit an employee to arbitrate a dispute without union participation.

The Railway Labor Act does not provide airline employees with a statutory right to compel arbitration before a System Board of Adjustment (SBA) without union participation, ruled a federal district court in New York. Following the employee’s termination as an airline technician, the union initially filed a grievance on his behalf. Three months later, the union advised the employee that the grievance was unlikely to succeed, and it would not pursue the matter. The employee sued, alleging that the union unlawfully prevented him from asserting his statutory right under RLA. Because the employee did not allege that his union breached its duty of fair representation, his complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted (Figuereo v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, No. 1:25-CV-00391 (NRM) (JRC) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2025)).

The employee was employed by United Airlines as an airline technician for almost 25 years. His employment was governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiated between United and the Teamsters union. The CBA prohibits discipline of an airline technician absent just cause.

Timecard fraud. On April 13, 2024, employee attempted to clock out at the end of his shift using his iPad, but the attempt failed. He informed his supervisor of the failure, and the supervisor manually entered a 10:30 P.M. clock-out time to correct the technological failure. However, after an investigation, United allegedly discovered that the employee exited the parking lot at 9:17 P.M. After further investigation, United allegedly found that, on five different occasions, the employee allegedly clocked in before his shift start time and then parked, causing him to be late for his shift. United terminated the employee on June 11, 2024, on the ground that the employee was allegedly “paid for time not worked,” allegedly amounting to timecard fraud.

Grievance. On June 17, 2024, a union shop steward filed a grievance on the employee’s behalf, seeking reinstatement and make-whole relief. Three months later, on September 10, 2024, the union notified the employee of its decision to decline to pursue the grievance on the basis that it was unlikely to succeed.

On three occasions, the employee wrote to United, invoking the CBA and requesting that the employer process his grievance to the System Board of Adjustment (SBA) so he may represent himself.

Lawsuit. On January 22, 2025, the employee filed this lawsuit, asserting that, notwithstanding any provisions of the CBA to the contrary, the RLA confers a statutory right to have his termination grievance heard before the SBA without union support. On July 11, 2025, United and the Teamsters filed motions to dismiss based on failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).

Right to individual arbitration. United and the Teamsters argued that the employee’s complaint failed to state a plausible claim because the RLA grants no individual right to compel arbitration under Section 184. Alternatively, even assuming such a statutory right exists, the employer and union contended that the employee ceded any such right by authorizing the union to act unilaterally on his behalf, including agreeing to “accept and be bound by” any “settlement” of his grievance.

Further, the Teamsters argued that the employee lacked Article III standing because his alleged injury is not redressable. The union asserted that the court cannot grant the relief the employee sought——arbitration before a single neutral arbitrator——because the court does not have authority to create a new SBA inconsistent with the CBA.

For his part, the employee argued that the RLA grants airline employees an individual right to arbitrate disputes classified as “minor” under the RLA before a board of adjustment without union participation.

The court found that the union and the employer had the more logical interpretation of the text of the RLA as applied to airline employees. Because neither the text of the Act nor any binding precedent supported the employee’s claim that airline employees have the right to arbitrate such disputes when their union representatives decline to pursue them, the court agreed with the defendants that no such statutory right exists, and that the employee was bound by the limitations on access to arbitration set forth in the parties’ CBA.

Courts that have dismissed suits by airline employees seeking individual access to arbitration have generally held that Section 184 provides no statutory right to compel arbitration absent union participation.

Here, the court was persuaded that interpreting the RLA to confer an individual right to arbitrate upon airline industry employees would take Elgin, J. & E. Ry. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 723 (1945) (Elgin I), beyond its statutory foundations in Sections 152 (Fourth) and 153 (First)(j), statutory provisions applicable to the railroad industry.

Grievance process. Next, the employee argued that compelling arbitration is “necessary to preserve the jurisdiction of the grievance process.” However, under Section 184, system boards established by agreement between employees and carriers have jurisdiction “not exceeding the jurisdiction” of Section 153. The jurisdiction the employee seeks to “preserve”——over claims brought by individuals without union participation——falls outside the authority Section 184 confers on SBAs.

Rights under CBA. Because the RLA confers no statutory individual right to arbitrate the employee’s grievance, any right he seeks to enforce must arise from the CBA, the court found. The CBA, however, similarly provides no individual right to pursue employees’ grievances and instead appears to give the union exclusive authority to take a grievance to arbitration. Moreover, nothing in the employee’s complaint alleges that the CBA was negotiated unlawfully, nor that the Teamsters exercised its authority in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner.

To the extent the employee’s argument reflects dissatisfaction with the union’s decision to withdraw representation, the court said, his remedy is to bring a claim asserting a breach of the duty of fair representation. Because the employee proceeded solely on the theory that he possesses an independent statutory right to arbitrate under the RLA, his claim cannot proceed because no such right exists under the RLA provisions applicable to air carriers.

The case is No. 1:25-CV-00391 (NRM) (JRC).

Judge: Morrison, N.

Attorneys: Stanley J. Silverstone (Meltz & Petersen) for Frederick Figuereo. Andrew Sal Hoffmann (Hoffmann & Dao) for International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Companies: International Brotherhood of Teamsters; Teamsters Local Union No. 210; United Airlines, Inc.

Cases: Labor Arbitration Discharge UnionsMembers UnfairLaborPractices NewYorkNews GCNNews