Kiamichi Railroad Co., Inc. v. National Mediation Board, Patrick J. Cleary, Joshua M. Javits, Kimberly A. Madigan, Members of the Board, American Train Dispatchers Association, Kiamichi Railroad Co., Inc. v. National Mediation Board, Patrick J. Cleary, Joshua M. Javits, Kimberly A. Madigan, Members of the Board, American Train Dispatchers Association, William Self, Jerry R. Blackwood, Jeff E. Peltier, Howard R. Forbus, Robby D. Leflore, Christopher D. Strange, Adam L. Eudy, Gordon R. Frederick, Cyril L. Box, John R. Powell, Timmy E. Coleman, Jerry W. Wilkinson, Otis D. Knight, Harold E. Strange, Stephen R. Forbus, Chester K. Testerman, Gyle W. Dale, Malin A. Pavelka, Glenn Allen, Intervenors-Appellants

Citations: 986 F.2d 1341; 25 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 228; 142 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2770; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 3127Docket: 92-7079

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; February 22, 1993; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Kiamichi Railroad Co. Inc. (Kiamichi) appealed a district court's denial of its request for a temporary restraining order and injunction against the National Mediation Board (NMB) and the American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA), which sought to hold an election for union representation of Kiamichi's employees. The district court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to review NMB's class or craft determinations regarding Kiamichi's employee representation dispute. Nineteen employees of Kiamichi attempted to intervene in the case, but their motion was denied, prompting their own appeal. The Tenth Circuit affirmed both the dismissal of Kiamichi's suit and the denial of the employees' motion to intervene. The NMB, following an application from ATDA regarding representation disputes between trainmen and engineers, determined these groups constituted distinct classes and scheduled an election. Following the election, which occurred after the district court's dismissal, both engineers and trainmen voted in favor of ATDA representation, leading to NMB's certification of ATDA as their bargaining representative. Kiamichi's appeal challenges this certification decision by the NMB.

Kiamichi contends that it has a single class of employees, termed "railroaders," who are cross-trained across various departments. However, the jurisdiction to resolve disputes regarding employee class designations for representation elections lies with the National Mediation Board (NMB), not federal courts. According to the Railway Labor Act, specifically Section 2, Ninth, the NMB is mandated to investigate representation disputes, and its decisions are subject to limited judicial review, primarily focused on whether NMB fulfilled its statutory investigative duty.

The Supreme Court has characterized the judicial review of NMB actions as extremely narrow. Federal courts cannot review NMB class determinations unless the complaining party demonstrates a gross violation of the Railway Labor Act or a constitutional rights violation. Kiamichi's claim that NMB's certification decision constituted a gross violation was dismissed by the district court, which agreed that NMB adequately investigated the case. Kiamichi argued that the NMB's reliance on a ninety-day preponderance period was insufficient and did not reflect the cross-training of employees, asserting that NMB should have considered a broader operational history and conducted further investigations, including employee interviews.

However, the NMB exercised its discretion appropriately, meeting with Kiamichi, reviewing employment records for the specified period, and gathering evidence. NMB acknowledged the cross-training of employees but ultimately determined that specific employees predominantly worked as trainmen or engineers. After reviewing Kiamichi's arguments, it was concluded that the NMB adequately performed its investigative duties.

Kiamichi contends that NMB did not adequately consider the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 during its investigation. The Staggers Act amended the Interstate Commerce Act, allowing rail carriers greater flexibility in acquiring lines and streamlining regulatory processes. Kiamichi argues that NMB's investigation failed to align with the Staggers Act's objectives, yet does not clarify how the Act constrains NMB's authority or how its actions breached specific provisions of the Railway Labor Act as amended. Consequently, Kiamichi has not established that NMB's decision represented a serious violation of the Railway Labor Act. 

Additionally, Kiamichi claims federal court jurisdiction based on alleged due process violations stemming from NMB's purportedly inadequate investigation. However, since Kiamichi has not demonstrated that NMB violated the Railway Labor Act, this due process argument lacks foundation. 

Regarding the district court's denial of intervenors' motion to intervene, the decision is upheld. The intervenors, most of whom were not eligible voters in the representation election, argued they were wrongfully excluded and that NMB's certification of ATDA could hinder their job cross-utilization as promised by Kiamichi. Although the district court did not provide reasons for its denial, it can be affirmed based on existing legal standards. Under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may intervene as of right if they have an interest in the action that could be impaired, provided their interests are not adequately represented by current parties.

Intervenors seeking to intervene as a matter of right must demonstrate that their interests may not be adequately represented by Kiamichi and that the outcome of the case could impair their ability to protect those interests, as established in Bottoms v. Dresser Indus., Inc. The intervenors argued that intervention would allow them to better challenge the NMB investigation's accuracy. However, it was noted that Kiamichi had already advanced the same claims on behalf of the intervenors. The court found that intervenors did not show how Kiamichi's representation was inadequate or how their objectives diverged from Kiamichi’s, leading to the conclusion that intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) was not warranted.

Although the intervenors referenced the possibility of permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b), the court expressed concerns about the timeliness of their motion, which was filed on the day of the hearing. Even if timely, intervenors did not demonstrate that the district court's denial of their request constituted an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the district court's decision to deny the motion to intervene and its lack of jurisdiction to review NMB's certification of ATDA as a bargaining representative were affirmed by the court.

Additionally, intervenors attempted to raise a new argument regarding a violation of their First Amendment rights due to exclusion from the voting process, which was not included in their initial motion. This claim, like Kiamichi's due process argument, was based on the assertion of NMB's inadequate investigation. However, since the court found the investigation adequate, it did not address the validity of the First Amendment claim, referencing previous case law that disenfranchised employees lack a freedom of association claim. The judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma was therefore upheld, and oral arguments were deemed unnecessary.