Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—STRIKES, LOCKOUTS—M.D. Fla.: Court issues TRO against rail strike stemming from CSX attendance policy change, (Jul 16, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

The union told CSX it would “use every lawful means available to preserve the negotiated status quo” unless the policy change was rescinded by July 15, 2026.

A federal district court in Florida has issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against an anticipated strike or other work stoppage of rail workers represented by the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers-Transportation Division concerning CSX Transportation’s allegedly unlawful unilateral modification of its attendance policy. Finding the dispute a minor one, subject to compulsory arbitration under the Railway Labor Act, the court additionally noted that CSX employs over 22,000 workers over 20,000 miles of railway track across 26 states and two Canadian provinces, that any disruption of its operation would have serious impacts on interstate and international commerce, and that a strike would harm the public while the union would suffer no harm from being restrained against an unlawful strike (CSX Transportation, Inc. v. International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers-Transportation Division, No.: 3:26-cv-1795-WWB-SJH (M.D. Fla. July 15, 2026)).

CSX and the union. CSX Transportation, Inc., is a common carrier and operates a railroad system spanning approximately 20,000 miles throughout the U.S. and Canada. The International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers-Transportation Division (SMART-TD), in turn, is a labor union that represents “trainmen, conductors, yardmen, and other classes of employees.”

Attendance policy. The attendance policy instituted by CSX assesses points to employees for certain absences, and the number of points assessed after an absence depends on the reason for the absence. In some cases, the number of points assessed can be reduced by providing medical documentation, and some absences, such as those resulting from FMLA leave, never result in an assessment of points. Eventually, however, an employee who accumulates 60 or more points can be disciplined, including by termination.

CSX maintains “other routes” for enforcing attendance-related issues. Pursuant to its disciplinary policy, the carrier has, for example, “disciplined and even dismissed employees for taking FMLA leave dishonestly even though the absences in those cases did not result in attendance points.”

The attendance policy was not implemented as part of any collective bargaining agreement when it became effective January 1, 2023. “However, in April 2023, as part of a broader agreement, the parties agreed to ‘adopt the CSX Attendance Policy in effect as of January 1, 2023,... subject to the terms for implementation, application, interpretation and intent as established by CSX as of the date of th[e] Agreement.’”

T&E Portal. CSX also allows employees to mark off absences for short-term illness, scheduled medical appointments, emergency treatment and hospitalization through the T&E Portal, an application that can be accessed through the employee’s company-issued iPad.

Notice. On June 30, 2026, CSX issued a system-wide Notice concerning an update to the T&E Portal and additionally clarifying CSX’s interpretation of certain terms under the attendance policy. The policy, for instance, provides that “[e]mployees who choose to submit medical documentation to support absences related to hospitalization, emergency treatment or scheduled medical appointments for themselves or family members” must provide the CSX Medical Department with certain information within three calendar days of “marking up for service[.]” The Notice defines “hospitalization,” “emergency treatment,” and “scheduled medical appointment,” even though those terms are undefined in the attendance policy itself, and further adds that “family member” means only an employee’s “Spouse, Son, Daughter [or] Parent (not in-law).”

Pushback. After CSX shared a draft of the Notice with the union’s general committees of adjustment, the draft resulted in significant pushback over what the union perceived as the Notice’s overly restrictive definitions and two-tiered attendance system. One committee representative formally objected that the Notice “contain[ed] numerous new substantive restrictions, conditions, eligibility requirements, definitions, and disciplinary standards that d[id] not exist within the [Policy].” He also warned that, should the Notice be issued, the union would view it as “an unlawful unilateral modification of the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement in violation of the Railway Labor Act.”

Issued nonetheless. CSX nonetheless issued the Notice, believing the objection was meritless. The parties then continued to discuss the union’s objection and attempted to resolve the dispute, to no avail.

Strike? “In the face of escalating warnings that Plaintiff perceived as prefiguring a strike,” observed the court, “Plaintiff sought reassurance that Defendant would ‘refrain from any actions that disrupt, delay, or interfere with [] normal railroad operations.’”

“Absolutely.” In return, the union assured CSX that it would “use every lawful means available to preserve the negotiated status quo” unless the Notice was rescinded by July 15, 2026. And when asked directly whether the union would engage in “self-help [] to disrupt [Plaintiff’s] operations” in the event of non-rescission, the union replied, “Absolutely.”

Lawsuit. CSX thereafter brought suit, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.

Likelihood of success. The court first found that CSX established a likelihood of success in showing that a strike would be lawful under the RLA. “The RLA distinguishes between two types of disputes in labor relations—major and minor.” Major disputes concern “the formation of collective agreements” and “arise [either] where there is no such agreement or where it is sought to change the terms of one, and therefore the issue is not whether an existing agreement controls the controversy.”

Minor disputes, by contrast, concern “the interpretation or application of [already existing] agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.” And “If a dispute is ‘minor’ the parties are prohibited from striking and must submit to compulsory arbitration of the dispute by the [National Railroad Adjustment Board (“NRAB”)].”

Minor. The court found that, on the record before it, the case presents a minor dispute. Issuance of the Notice and the terms provided in it, the court observed, “were both arguably justified by the parties’ existing bargaining agreement, which adopts Plaintiff’s Policy.” The attendance policy provides certain rules and standards regarding absences caused by the hospitalization, emergency treatment, or scheduled medical appointment of an employee or an employee’s family member, but it does not define those terms. The Notice, in turn, defines them. And though the union emphasized that the Notice “contained new substantive restrictions, conditions, eligibility requirements, definitions, and disciplinary standards that are not within Plaintiff’s Policy and therefore not within the parties’ bargaining agreement,” it followed that “the ‘nature of the dispute... depend[s] on the existence and interpretation’ of the bargaining agreement, or Policy.”

Other factors. Turning to the other factors relevant to the appropriateness of a TRO, the court observed that CSX employs over 22,000 workers over 20,000 miles of railway track across 26 states and two Canadian provinces, and that any disruption of its operation would have serious impacts on interstate and international commerce. CSX alleged that its traffic interchanges with other rail carriers and their respective rail systems. Because service to those carriers and downstream consumers would be affected by a work stoppage, noted the court, the public interest favored the entry of a TRO. Finally, in contrast, the union would suffer no harm from being restrained against an unlawful strike.

The order. The TRO enjoins SMART-TD, its divisions, lodges, locals, officers, agents, employees, members, and all persons acting in concert or participation with any of them, from authorizing, encouraging, permitting, calling, engaging in, or continuing any strikes, work stoppages, picketing, slowdowns, sickouts, or other self-help against CSX or its operating rail subsidiaries over any dispute relating to the interpretation of the carrier’s attendance policy and other aspects of the Notice until July 20, 2026, at 3:00 p.m.

The case is No.: 3:26-cv-1795-WWB-SJH.

Judge: Berger, W.

Attorneys: Robert Eric Bilik (McGuireWoods) for CSX Transportation, Inc. Robert R. Underwood, II (Underwood Law) for International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers-Transportation Division [Smart-TD].

Companies: CSX Transportation, Inc.; International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers-Transportation Division [Smart-TD]

Cases: Labor UnionsMembers EmployeeLeave UnfairLaborPractices RemediesDamages FloridaNews