Log in
< Back
RLA Part 5: The RLA In Practice

RLA Part 5: The RLA In Practice

September 15, 2019

SWAPA hears it all the time, both in emails, conversations, and on social media: “We could force a deal. All we need to do is stop picking up extra. This place couldn’t run without us doing extra for the Company!” No doubt, it would be easy to publicly demonstrate our Pilots’ undeniable value and importance to this airline. Pilots are critical to Southwest’s daily operations and are not easily replaced. While slowdowns, campaigns like logbook write-ups, and sick-outs would put enormous pressure on the Company, they, and activities like them, violate the Railway Labor Act (RLA). And violating the RLA will come at a grave cost to our membership. Even after years of negotiations, the RLA does not permit such actions. Remember that the primary purpose of the RLA is to avoid interruption of interstate commerce, not to protect labor! In that vein for this article, we offer a word of caution by highlighting the missteps of other unions.

There is a history of unions being held accountable for their membership by federal courts. The most devastating ruling was handed down to the Allied Pilots Association (APA) (see sidebar below). The trend since the APA case, unfortunately, has not been in favor of labor. Here are some other notable cases. In each, the court granted the injunction to stop labor. 

  • Delta v. ALPA (2001) – Individual Pilots publicly stated that they were not going to fly voluntary open time and encouraged others to do the same. The 11th Circuit found that ALPA had “an affirmative duty to end or prevent the unilateral unlawful activity of its members” and must make “every reasonable effort” to end the campaign.  
  • United v. ALPA (2008) – ALPA launched a public campaign to pressure the company to reopen their CBA by encouraging Pilots to refuse flying, fly the contract, and call in sick. The court found that even if the union had not instigated the job action, the union failed to “publish anything that was sincerely meant to discourage this conduct.” ALPA had a duty to “exert every reasonable effort to stop the disruption to United’s operations.”
  • U.S. Airways v. USAPA (2011) – A Pilot job action disguised as a “safety” campaign was rejected by the court. Increases in Pilot maintenance write-ups, fatigue calls, slow taxiing and delaying distance learning completion were concerted. Use of anonymous email addresses, prepaid cellphones, and decals of messages supporting slowdowns were discovered. USAPA denied involvement but was unable to explain why it did nothing to stop the campaign. The court held that USAPA had a responsibility to act and failed to meet that duty.  
  • Spirit Airlines v. ALPA (2017) – During an extended period of operational disruptions due to a number Pilot activities including sick-outs, job actions, and work to rule campaigns, a fight broke out in a mob of 500 passengers in Fort Lauderdale after several Spirit flights canceled. Passengers “became enraged, fearful or visually upset” from the flight cancellations. Spirit Airlines sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the union and its Pilots. The court issued a broad injunction against the Spirit Pilots, ALPA, its MEC and NC from interfering with Spirit’s flight operations. Defendants were enjoined from “calling, permitting, instigating, authorizing, encouraging, participating in, approving, or continuing any form of interference with Plaintiff’s airline operations, including, but not limited to, any strike, work stoppage, sick-out, slowdown, work to rule campaign, concerted refusal to accept voluntary or overtime flight assignments, or other concerted refusal to perform normal Pilot operations consistent with the status quo, including but not limited to, slow taxiing, writing up maintenance items, calling in fatigued, delaying flights, refusing to answer a call from scheduling, refusing to fly an aircraft that meets legal requirements for flight, or refusing to accept voluntary or overtime flying.” The court also ordered defendants to “take all reasonable steps within their power to prevent the aforesaid actions and to immediately cease the aforesaid actions.” 
  • AA v. TWU/IAM (2019) – A mechanics’ work slowdown resulted in the cancellation of more than 700 flights and impacted more than 175,000 passengers. The court granted a TRO barring the two unions and their members from participating in or encouraging “any form of interference” with AA’s operations, including work slowdowns and refusing to work overtime if it is designed to keep planes out of service. 

Don’t think for a second that the LUV Airline won’t accuse its unions of RLA violations during difficult negotiations. Remember 2015? Southwest Airlines sued AMFA in February of that year to stop mechanics from refusing overtime shifts, and then sued TWU during Thanksgiving to force the ramp workers to show up in California. In 2019, the Company again sued AMFA for allegedly taking aircraft out of service, to which AMFA responded with its counterclaims of defamation against the Company and its COO, Mike Van De Ven. 

So what is expected of our Pilots? As we approach C2020, there is no reason to think that Southwest would refrain from similar court tactics when negotiations get tough, if only to break SWAPA’s negotiation stride or create disunity in our ranks. Don’t stray off script. It is by design, not by accident, that SWAPA remains the only Pilot Union of the Big Four that has never been accused of an illegal job action. SWAPA will take every action permitted by the RLA. We will use our Negotiating Committee and our Strike Preparedness Committee if necessary. But most importantly, we will count on our Pilots to do only what is needed and what is asked.

AA v. APA.png