Search form

Surface Transportation Board Backs Railroad’s Denial of Service during Labor Dispute

  • October 13, 2015

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) has denied a petition by a Texas metal producer that, if approved, would have forced the Union Pacific Railroad Co. (UP) to restore rail service at the producer’s plant in the midst of an employee lockout. The STB is an economic and adjudicatory body affiliated with the U.S. Department of Transportation and set up by Congress, in part, to resolve railroad rate and service disputes.

Stating that the demand for UP’s rail service “is not a reasonable request under the present circumstances,” the three-member Board unanimously concluded last month that UP’s denial did not violate its common carrier rail service obligation to the metal producer.

“UP has shown that it evaluated the potential effects of providing service, acted with due diligence to provide service, and proposed to mitigate its inability to serve,” said STB.

Four hundred fifty members of the United Steelworkers union were locked out on October 11, 2014 in a contract dispute. On November 6, 2014, UP suspended shipments to a production facility. Between the two dates, UP provided twice weekly service to permit alternative planning. Yet, the dispute continued.

Since the service suspension, the company had to use trucks, which are more expensive and less reliable than rail, the company said. Moreover, its facility was not designed to handle regular trucking of lime shipments. The company also asserted that it had made at least five offers of assistance to UP to ensure uninterrupted service, all of which UP rejected.
 
UP countered that it had warned that rail service using union-represented employees would not be practical if pickets were set up at the plant, because UP’s union employees have consistently refused to cross picket lines over concern for their personal safety. UP would not require its employees to work under conditions they believed unsafe, the railroad added. The rail firm also contended that requiring its union employees to cross picket lines would undermine relations with its own workers.

STB said that the presence of a picket line alone does not justify denial of service. Rather, based on past legal precedent, a host of factors must be considered. In reaching its decision, STB relied upon three criteria: (1) the potential impact on UP employee relations and service, (2) the nature of the dispute, and (3) UP’s efforts at due diligence, including exploring alternate transportation options.

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

November 16, 2017

Transportation Department Expands Drug Testing Panel to Include Certain ‘Semi-Synthetic’ Opioids

November 16, 2017

Employers regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) should revise their drug and alcohol testing policies to conform to new DOT regulations that added four “semi-synthetic” opioid drugs to the DOT drug testing panel. The new regulations go into effect on January 1, 2018. DOT announced in a rule published in the Federal... Read More

November 15, 2017

Top Five Labor Law Developments for October 2017

November 15, 2017

Home health aides who successfully objected to the collection of “fair share” fees without their consent may not proceed as a class, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, has ruled, affirming a lower court’s determination. Riffey v. Rauner, No. 16-3487 (7th Cir. Oct. 11, 2017). The home health aides... Read More

November 3, 2017

What Did National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Richard Griffin’s Term Mean for Employers?

November 3, 2017

Richard F. Griffin, Jr.’s term as National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel (GC) was marked by a dogged defense and pursuit of bolstering the rights of unions and employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Griffin, a former general counsel for the International Union of Operating Engineers, was the NLRB GC... Read More