Originally from Dispute Resolution Journal

Preview Page

LABOR — AIR LINE MERGERS — ARBITRATION UNDER CIVIL
AERONAUTICS BOARD'S (CAB) LABOR PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS
(LPP) IS THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE CAB —
9 U.S.C. §1 ET SEQ. IS NOT APPLICABLE

Discharge issues allegedly arising under the Labor Protective Provisions
contained in the Civil Aeronautics Board order which approved an airlines
merger are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the CAB and an
appeal from a CAB order denying a request to compel arbitration
must be taken to the Court of Appeals pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §1486.
The plaintiff, who had been discharged by Delta, asserted that her
discharge was controlled by the LPP and requested arbitration tinder
§ 13(a), but Delta refused. The plaintiff then petitioned the CAB to
compel Delta to submit to arbitration. Delta argued^ that the discharge
was for cause and therefore outside the ambit of the LPP.
The CAB dismissed the case, but did not adopt the position of either
party. The CAB reasoned that since "it lacks expertise in labor matters
and it is not charged with being a labor board for the airline
industry, it declined to intervene between the parties and order arbitration
where arbitration can be ordered by a court with authority to
enforce its decrees." The plaintiff did not appeal from the board's
decision to the Court of Appeals as provided in 49 USC 1486. Instead,
she filed a civil action in Federal District Court seeking to
compel arbitration. The plaintiff, said the court, cannot ignore the
plain language of the statute. We do not have jurisdiction to hear the
case. Likewise, the court rejected plaintiffs assertion that the LPP
was a contract or agreement and that the arbitration clause of §13
brings the case within the Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §1, et seq. Section
4 of the Arbitration Act permits a party to an arbitration agreement
to petition any district court which, save for such an agreement,
would have jurisdiction under Title 28 to compel arbitration. The
court held that "the LPP is clearly not such an agreement, over which,
save for the arbitration clause, a district court has subject matter
jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties. . . . §1378 and §1486
of the Aviation Act must be read as creating exceptions to the general
enforceability of arbitration clauses in district courts when those
clauses are part of the Labor Protective Provisions laid down by the
CAB in approving airline mergers." The court was unable to find an
independent ground of jurisdiction. It said that while §301 of the
Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §185, provides jurisdiction
in the district court for suits for violation of contracts between employers
and labor organization, the plaintiff has not alleged the existence
of any collective bargaining agreement. Wells v. Delta Air
Lines, Inc., 398 F.Supp. 384 (E.D. Pa. 1975).