A federal judge in Texas has ruled that union-affiliated employees at BNSF can’t go on strike over objections to BNSF’s new attendance program that goes into effect next Tuesday.
Members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) and the Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation (SMART-TD) said on Jan. 13 that they were considering going on strike at BNSF over an attendance program that they called overly restrictive and hints of precision scheduled railroading, which union members have been skeptical of because of the headcount cuts that have taken place following the railroads’ adoption of the operational model.
BNSF (NYSE: BRK.B) countered with a lawsuit aimed at preventing the unions from striking. In the suit, BNSF contends that it developed the “Hi Viz,” or high-visibility, program in response to employees saying that it was unclear under the existing attendance program when they would exceed the threshold that subjects them to progressive discipline.
While the suit, including the question of whether the issue is a minor or major dispute under the Railway Labor Act, is ongoing in federal court, Judge Mark T. Pittman agreed to BNSF’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing union workers from striking for now.
“The Court’s TRO enjoined Defendants from authorizing, encouraging, permitting, calling or otherwise engaging in any strikes, work stoppages, picketing, slowdowns, sickouts or other self-help against BNSF or its operating rail subsidiaries over any dispute relating to the Hi Viz attendance standards,” Pittman ruled Tuesday. Pittman is with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth. “The Court recognizes the importance of this case and desires to resolve the instant dispute in an expeditious manner.”
In a separate order, Pittman explained the rationale for his decision, saying that a strike, amid ongoing supply chain disruptions, would harm BNSF more than it would the unions.
“At this stage in the proceedings, the Court is not deciding whether this dispute is either major or minor as a matter of law,” Pittman said, adding that past court cases reflecting similar situations have shown that this one could be considered a minor dispute. That means the unions would be violating the Railway Labor Act if they went on strike.
Pittman continued: “Without a temporary restraining order barring an ‘illegal strike over a minor dispute,’ BNSF would suffer substantial, immediate, and irreparable harm. The Unions, however, will not suffer any harm as a result of a temporary restraining order that this Court, or an arbitrator, cannot remedy. The balance of harms therefore weighs in favor of injunctive relief. The record further establishes that a strike would exacerbate our current supply-chain crisis — harming the public at large, not just BNSF. A temporary restraining order will thus serve, rather than disserve, the public interest.”
In the footnotes of Tuesday’s order, Pittmann wrote: “In this Court’s experience, prolonged fights in federal court between unions and management only delay the inevitable negotiations between the parties. Frequently, such fights benefit no one, and the American consumer is left to bear the cost. … Throughout the remainder of these proceedings, the Parties are encouraged to remember the admonition of President John F. Kennedy: ‘Let us never negotiate out of fear but let us never fear to negotiate.’”
In a separate ruling last Thursday, the venue for the court proceeding switched from Dallas to Fort Worth.
Subscribe to FreightWaves’ e-newsletters and get the latest insights on freight right in your inbox.
Click here for more FreightWaves articles by Joanna Marsh.
