Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—UNIONS, MEMBERS—8th Cir.: Court lacked jurisdiction over dispute between union and railway that involved interpretation of parties’ CBAs, (Jul 22, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The allegations in the complaint all relate to the employer’s obligations under the CBAs regarding its use of subcontractors and union members.

A dispute between a union and BNSF railway regarding the reduction in the number of maintenance-of-way workers used by the employer in favor of subcontractors constituted a “minor” dispute under the Railway Labor Act and was subject to mandatory arbitration, ruled the Eighth Circuit. The appeals court agreed with a district court that the dispute involved the interpretation and application of the parties’ collective bargaining agreements such that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the judgment of the district court in dismissing the union’s complaint (Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 23-3731 (8th Cir. July 21, 2025)).

The union represents maintenance-of-way employees for the purposes of collective bargaining under the RLA. The employees are tasked with maintaining the railway’s tracks. The employer and union are parties to multiple collective bargaining agreements that dictate various elements of the relationship between them.

Reduction in bargaining unit employees. Since 2016, the employer has reduced the number of maintenance-of-way workers. According to the employer, the reduction occurred because of an evolving approach to engineering needs, production modifications, and improved planning. For its part, the union asserted the reduction was caused by the employer’s increasing reliance on nonunion subcontractors to perform the work.

Based on this overall decrease in maintenance-of-way employees, the union initiated this action alleging that the employer had reduced the maintenance-of-way workforce by 19 percent between 2016 and 2023, while increasing the use of subcontractors for the same work. The union asserted that the employer was improperly utilizing subcontractors over union members, failed to exert every reasonable effort to maintain the CBAs, and failed to deal with the union in good faith.

The union moved for summary judgment, asserting that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law declaring that the employer violated the RLA. The employer countered by filing a motion to dismiss the union’s complaint, asserting that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.

Lower court decision. The district court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss, agreeing that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim. The district court determined that the dispute between the union and the employer was minor after concluding that it involved the interpretation and application of the CBAs.

Subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the union asserted that the district court erred when it concluded the dispute was “minor” and it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. According to the union, the dispute did not involve the interpretation of the CBAs and instead involved the employer’s intentional failure to comply with the CBAs. Finally, the union asserted that the district court erroneously placed the burden on the union to establish jurisdiction when that burden properly rests with the employer.

Major v. minor disputes. The RLA “provid[es] a comprehensive framework for resolving labor disputes” between a railway and a union. Where a dispute arises between a railway and a union, the nature of the dispute dictates the procedural mechanism by which it must be resolved. Major disputes involve “‘the formation of collective[-]bargaining agreements or efforts to secure them,’” while “[m]inor disputes ‘relate[ ] either to the meaning or proper application of a particular provision’ in a collective-bargaining agreement.” Minor disputes must be submitted to binding arbitration before the National Railroad Adjustment Board (NRAB).

The Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here, the union’s arguments all hinged on the interpretation of the CBAs and whether the employer violated the CBAs through its increased use of subcontractors who were not members of the union. The allegations in the complaint all related to the employer’s obligations under the CBAs regarding its use of subcontractors and union members. Because the “case implicates a question of contract interpretation,” the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the question as it was within the sole province of the NRAB to do so.

RLA violation. The union tried to avoid this conclusion by casting its lawsuit as a direct violation of Section 2 First but this argument has been rejected by other circuits. However, the appeals court noted that the ultimate inquiry here was whether the dispute required interpretation of a contractual provision in the CBAs. According to the union, Section 2 First applies more broadly than to only those situations where there is a threatened or actual disruption to commerce. But all of cases relied upon by the union in making this argument actually involved situations with an ongoing threat to commerce.

The union also argued that the duty under the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is analogous to the commands in Section 2 First and imposes an independent duty on the employer. However, this argument was untenable as it directly undermines the court’s duty to “avoid ‘freewheeling judicial interference in labor relations’” unless it is “the only practical, effective means of enforcing the command of § 2 First.”

Here, the union had an available remedy: arbitration. Accordingly, it must seek this avenue of relief, as mandated by the RLA. The district court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The appeals court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the union’s complaint.

The case is No. 23-3731.

Judge: Shepherd, B.

Attorneys: John E. Corrigan (Dowd & Corrigan) for Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees. David M. Pryor (David Pryor Law) for BNSF Railway Co.

Companies: Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees; BNSF Railway Company

Cases: Labor UnionsMembers ContractClaims ArkansasNews IowaNews MinnesotaNews MissouriNews NebraskaNews NorthDakotaNews SouthDakotaNews