Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—BARGAINING—N.D. Ill.: BNSF arguably justified in adding qualifications other than ‘seniority’ in position bidding, (Oct 30, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

Whether a dispute is major or minor turns on whether a railroad can point to existing authority to justify its action.

BNSF Railway was entitled to dismissal of a union’s claim that it made unilateral changes to the parties’ CBA, ruled a federal district court in Illinois. After BNSF assumed operations of the former Montana Rail Link, it agreed to be bound by a pre-existing CBA. Thereafter, BNSF created over 40 new “qualifications” which are granted to employees only after they complete specific training sessions. The union sued. The court agreed with BNSF that the CBA arguably justified BNSF’s conduct, and that the dispute over the new “qualifications” was thus a minor dispute, subject to binding arbitration (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division of International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 25 C 9121 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 29, 2025)).

Change in operations. The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes has been the exclusive collective bargaining representative for maintenance-of-way employees of Montana Rail Link (MRL) since 1987. Prior to 2024, MRL leased and operated certain rail lines in Montana. In January 2024, MRL discontinued its rail operations, and BNSF assumed operations on all former MRL rail lines as part of a new MRL subdivision of BNSF. As part of this transition, BNSF agreed to be bound by the CBA, which had been previously entered into between the union and MRL.

The CBA provides maintenance-of-way employees of the MRL subdivision with certain “seniority rights.” Specifically, the CBA provides that the “right to work positions and assignments shall be governed by seniority.” The CBA also sets forth a process under which BNSF is required to bulletin job vacancies and under which employees apply for vacancies. Under this process, “[e]ach new position or vacancy bulletined will be assigned to the senior applicant who holds seniority in the seniority roster from which the position in question is filled.”

The CBA defines the different job positions available for maintenance-of-way employees. For most positions, the CBA provides that the employee must be “qualified” to perform the work but does not enumerate specific requirements. But for certain positions, the CBA does enumerate specific requirements.

New qualifications. After the MRL transition, BNSF created over 40 new “qualifications” which are granted to employees only after they complete specific training sessions. Then, starting in 2025, BNSF required that employees obtain certain of these new “qualifications” prior to bidding on certain job positions.

The union filed its complaint, contending that BNSF violated the CBA (and in turn the RLA) because “[i]nstead of awarding positions based strictly on seniority, as required by the CBA, [BNSF] began awarding positions based [on] who had the newly created ‘qualifications.’”

Modification of contract. To modify the “rates of pay, rules, or working conditions of [its] employees,” a railroad must either “act in accordance with any existing agreement” or “go through the bargaining and negotiation procedures prescribed in the RLA.”

Major dispute versus minor dispute. When disagreements arise over whether a railroad acted in accordance with an agreement, “the RLA draws a line between two classes of disputes... [what the] Supreme Court has [called] ‘major disputes’ and ‘minor disputes.’” A major dispute “arises from the creation of new contracts or modifications of existing contracts that affect any of the mandatory subjects of bargaining established in the RLA” such as rates of pay, rules, or working conditions. A minor dispute “arise[s] from the interpretation or application of existing agreements.” Whether a dispute is major, or minor turns on whether a railroad can point to existing authority to justify its action.

“Federal courts only have jurisdiction to hear major disputes, [and] minor disputes are resolved in arbitration.” So long as the employer’s interpretation of the CBA is “neither obviously insubstantial or frivolous, nor made in bad faith, the court lacks jurisdiction to do anything but dismiss the case and allow arbitration to go forward.”

Application. BNSF moved to dismiss on the basis that the dispute regarding the over 40 new “qualifications” is a minor dispute, subject to binding arbitration and thus that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The dispute is minor so long as the CBA “arguably justifies” BNSF’s decision to add the new “qualifications” to the job bulletin.

“Seniority rights”. The court turned to consider the language of the CBA. To start, the CBA has numerous provisions which clearly protect “seniority rights.” The court found that these provisions established a contractual baseline that job positions should be filled based on seniority.

However, seniority is not an absolute requirement. The CBA enumerates specific requirements for certain positions. Under the plain language of the CBA, though BNSF must account for seniority, it may still decline a job position to the most senior employee if the most senior employee has not fulfilled the specific requirements set forth in the CBA. BNSF seeks to extend this principle by declining job positions to senior employees who have not fulfilled the “qualifications” mandated by BNSF (in addition to the requirements mandated by the CBA).

“Qualifications”. Although the 40 new “qualifications” added an extra burden to qualify for a position, each “qualification” is granted to any employee who completes the relevant training session. Further, BNSF clearly posts which “qualifications” are required for each position. BNSF thus had a non-frivolous and good faith argument that even accounting for the new “qualifications,” senior employees still have a “reasonable opportunity” to qualify for the positions because they are aware of the required trainings and have an opportunity to complete them.

On the other hand, the CBA provides that employees may secure positions through the exercise of seniority even if “not yet qualified” and those employees then have a 30-day window during which BNSF may remove the employee if the employee “lack[s] the ability” to do the work. Thus, the union had a reasonable argument that even where a senior employee is not qualified, he should still be given the position, at least initially.

Arguable justification of conduct. However, the court noted that its role in this case was not to interpret the CBA, or to determine whether the union’s position or BNSF’s position is the more reasonable interpretation. Rather, the court need only consider whether the CBA arguably justified BNSF’s conduct. Here, the court determined that although the provision in question lends itself both ways, it still arguably justified BNSF’s conduct.

If BNSF were forced to award job positions to unqualified senior employees only to remove them within 30 days, this would create significant inefficiencies. Moreover, the court agreed with BNSF’s reading of a contractual provision that provided it with the “managerial prerogative... [to] require employees to meet minimum certification and credential requirements as a precursor to the seniority-driven bidding process.”

Thus, this case presented a minor dispute subject to binding arbitration under the RLA. Accordingly, BNSF’s motion to dismiss was granted.

The case is No. 25 C 9121.

Judge: Alonso, J.

Attorneys: Pamela Marie Newport (Herzfeld, Suetholz, Gastel, Leniski, and Wall) for Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Jeffrey James Scolaro (Mohan Groble Scolaro) for BNSF Railway Co.

Companies: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division of International Brotherhood of Teamsters; BNSF Railway Co.

Cases: Labor Bargaining UnionsMembers IllinoisNews