noting the “relatively light burden that the railroad must meet in order to show that its unilateral actions constitute a minor dispute”
How later courts described this case
- noting the “relatively light burden that the railroad must meet in order to show that its unilateral actions constitute a minor dispute”
- “The Railway Labor Act ... prohibits federal courts from becoming involved in minor disputes. Minor disputes must be resolved through an arbitration process that is subject to very narrow judicial review.”
- minor dispute is one “arguably comprehended within an already existing collective bargaining agreement”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Although I agree with the result and much of the majority’s analysis, I cannot agree, for example, with the proposition that the use of a lie detector is only a “slight variation of investigative technique----” Supra p. 621. I also question the majority’s implication that asking employees to submit to polygraph tests never involves a change in “working conditions” under the Railway Labor Act. A “working condition” is not necessarily limited to a requirement with which an employee must comply to avoid being fired.
In addition, I believe labor-management relations must always be viewed realistically. The employment relationship frequently involves coercion — spoken and unspoken. “Consent” by an employee to an investigative technique is therefore a tricky business. Here, the district court found that the consent of the employees made the testing voluntary and this finding is not clearly erroneous. We need not embellish this conclusion with much independent speculation.
Beyond this, the polygraph examinations conducted here took place in a sheriff’s office in the course of what started as a criminal investigation. This circumstance distinguishes the present facts from tests independently undertaken by the railroad and unrelated to law enforcement.