U.S. Court throws out BMWE lawsuit against NRLC seeking to derail new Railroad Retirement deal. Says union's case is "superfluous," "argumentative" and "confusing"

CHICAGO - A U.S. District Court in Illinois recently dismissed a major lawsuit by the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWE) meant to derail the new Railroad Retirement agreement saying the union's omnibus complaint against the National Railway Labor Conference (NRLC) "is argumentative, confusing and fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

BMWE filed the lawsuit in an effort to scuttle the NRLC's January 14, 2000, agreement with a coalition of unions regarding the new railroad retirement program. The lawsuit asked that the NRLC resume good faith bargaining with the BMWE. In addition, the BMWE wanted the court to declare that the NRLC and the other unions could not alter the health and medical benefits policy GA-4600 unless it agreed to the changes.

The BMWE and the BLE have actively opposed a coalition of 11 unions representing more than 3 million members that are seeking passage of an improved Railroad Retirement package in this session of Congress. The bill, H.R. 4844, currently is in the House awaiting a final vote after Labor Day.

In throwing out the BMWE's lawsuit, Judge Charles L. Norgle, Sr., of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, said, "BMWE admits that the 'Defendant Carriers are free to say anything they like to Congress [and that] BMWE does in fact seek injunctive relief, but only to the extent that Defendant Carriers would be required by this Court to go back and engage in bargaining with Plaintiff BMWE…' Thus BMWE appears to admit that it merely seeks to compel Defendant carrier representatives to resume good faith bargaining with BMWE. That said, most of BMWE's numerous prayers for relief seem misplaced."

The judge also said: "Further, if the BMWE merely seeks to compel Defendant railway carrier agents to resume good faith negotiations with BMWE, many of the Complaint's assertions are superfluous and confusing…These and numerous other assertions demonstrate that BMWE's Complaint fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

In a major slap in the face to the BMWE's legal strategy, the judge said, "Again, it appears from the BMWE's Response (but is far from clear in the Complaint) that BMWE pleads only one claim: the Defendants refuse to negotiate with BMWE in good faith as required by the RLA. If this is so, the Complaint contains vast amounts of superfluous argument, extraneous material, and prayers for relief that confuse the issue and should be removed."

The judge said BMWE could reinstate its claim in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by August 15, 2000.

UTU Main Page