Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Perez

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

February 18, 2015

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
THOMAS E. PEREZ, Secretary of Labor, Respondent

Argued December 4, 2014

On Petition for Review from the Final Decision and Order of the United States Department of Labor's Administrative Review Board. No. 12-106; 12-081.

ARGUED:

Robert E. Harrington, III, HARRINGTON, THOMPSON, ACKER & HARRINGTON, LTD., Chicago, Illinois, for Intervenor.

John B. Lewis, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Petitioner.

Rachel Goldberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

ON BRIEF:

Robert E. Harrington, III, HARRINGTON, THOMPSON, ACKER & HARRINGTON, LTD., Chicago, Illinois, for Intervenor.

John B. Lewis, Dustin M. Dow, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Petitioner.

Rachel Goldberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Harry W. Zanville, San Diego, California, for Amicus Curiae.

Before: COLE, Chief Judge; GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge; CARR, District Judge.[*]

OPINION

Page 508

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge.

The Federal Railroad Safety Act (the " FRSA" ), which prohibits a railroad carrier from retaliating against employees who report work-related injuries and potential safety violations, provides that " [a]n employee may not seek protection under both this section and another provision of law for the same allegedly unlawful act of the railroad carrier." 49 U.S.C. § 20109(f). This case presents the question whether § 20109(f) precludes a railroad employee from filing an FRSA claim with respect to an adverse employment decision if he has already claimed that the employment decision violated his collective bargaining agreement and has arbitrated that dispute under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act (the " RLA" ). We conclude that it does not and therefore deny Norfolk Southern's petition for review.

I.

To give context to the parties' arguments, we begin with the relevant statutory background.

In the mid-1920s, Congress realized that labor disputes between railroad employee unions and railroad carriers had the potential to cripple interstate commerce by bringing the railroad industry to a standstill. See Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, 558 U.S. 67, 72, 130 S.Ct. 584, 175 L.Ed.2d 428 (2009); Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.., 372 U.S. 284, 290, 83 S.Ct. 691, 9 L.Ed.2d 759 (1963). In an attempt to diminish the likelihood of strikes and to " encourage use of the nonjudicial processes of negotiation, mediation and arbitration for the adjustment of labor disputes," Congress passed the Railway Labor Act in 1926. Brotherhood of R. Trainmen v. Toledo, P. & W. R.R., 321 U.S. 50, 58, 64 S.Ct. 413, 88 L.Ed. 534 (1944). Under the original version of the RLA, the parties were encouraged--but not required--to submit " minor disputes" (that is, " grievances arising from the application of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.