# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Grahn v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Airline Division > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386011_2262%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1993 - **Citation:** 508 U.S. 912 ## Text | ee 5 2 ' Yrs, — ; JD a ng fey zt y . ‘ Ba. &s ‘s U4 G 2 7 I oO 4 3 | aR 2 . 1993 No. —. ssid IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1992 VICTOR G. GRAHN; JAMES L. COOPER, JR.; RICHARD DANIEL GALLAGHER; COURTNEY B.L. EDWARDS; RONALD WAYNE DAGE, i..)...2.5eee ae PETITIONERS versus INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS AIRLINE DIVISION, LOCAL 608, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO; THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO; UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO.:: INDEPENDENT PILOTS ASSOCIATION, ....RESPONDENTS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT HOLLIS L. SEARCY Attorneys at Law Republic Building, Suite 400 429 West Muhammad Ali Blvd Louisville, Kentucky 40202 (502) 582-1100 Counsel for Petitioners No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1992 VICTOR G. GRAHN; JAMES L. COOPER, JR.; RICHARD DANIEL GALLAGHER; COURTNEY B.L. EDWARDS; FPOTIREEE WEE TUE BPPURS ond ide ankncduisscanmecncas PETITIONERS versus INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS AIRLINE DIVISION, LOCAL 608, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO; THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO; UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO.: INDEPENDENT PILOTS ASSOCIATION, ....RESPONDENTS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Se HOLLIS L. SEARCY Attorneys at Law Republic Building, Suite 400 429 West Muhammad Ali Blvd Louisville, Kentucky 40202 (S02) 582-1100 Counsel for Petitioners QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW WHETHER THE LANGUAGE OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT AT 45 U.S.C. § 152 SEVENTH AND 45 U.S.C. § 156 PROHIBITS DEFENDANTS FROM CHANGING THE RATES OF PAY, RULES, OR WORKING CONDITIONS OF THE PLAINTIFFS CONTRARY TO AND IN VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF THE’ EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, AND CONTRARY TO, AND IN VIOLATION OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, AND IF SO, WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT ENTERING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT UNIONS FOR BREACH OF DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION, AND AGAINST DEFENDANT UPS FOR BREACH OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS ARBITRARY AND IN ERROR AS A MATTER OF LAW. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE COMPANY AND UNION REPRESENTATIVES WERE AUTHORIZED TO CREATE A SIDE AGREEMENT PURPORTING TO INTERPRET A PROVISION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT RESOLVED PREVIOUSLY BY A SYSTEM ®80ARD OF ADJUSTMENT RULING, WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE PROCEDURES ENGAGED IN TO EFFECT SUCH CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS ULTIMATELY DID OR DID NOT ABIDE BY THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THE PROVISIONS OF THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT, AND A UNION’S DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION. IIT. Li WHETHER THE SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO APPLY THE CORRECT STANDARD IN REVIEWING’ THE DISTRICT COURT’S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 1v PARTIES The Petitioners in this Court are Victor G. Grahn, James L. Cooper, Jr., Richard Daniel Gallagher, Courtney B.L. Edwards, Ronald Wayne Dabe, who were the Plaintiffs-Appellants below. The Respondents in this Court, who were the Defendants- Appellees below, are International Brotherhood of Teamsters Airline Division, Local 608, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO; The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO; United Parcel Service Co.; Independent Pilots Association. Vv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Questions Presented for Review......................... i, ii, ili Pe aienucscharnncoca cat eacie cea iv re ic cccsisdiceis ccs Vii Official and Unofficial Reports of Opinions Pe Ne Wi iuhasacccrtetvseonerecesieee ces Vili a seiicniintinsitavined onslacs eromummaadeenins l Constitutional Provisions, Statutes and Rules Involved in the Case.................... 2 Statement of the Case...............0 ccc ceceecec aces 3-11 PN i viksinanenseciatuacevene: iicukaesedeaabekebonseerin 11-26 I. The District Court Decision Entering Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint Was Arbitrary And In Error As A Matter Of Law Because It Failed To Address The Issue Set Forth In Plaintiffs’ Complaint And In The Parties Motions For Summary SIRS panckissucgeciccsunixscuenee, 11-14 Il] Conclusio Appendix Dias hea v1 Plaintiffs Have Presented Material Facts Raising Genuine Issues As To Defendant Teamsters Union's Breach Of Its Duty of Fair ROPTOSOMMATION, ......cccccccsevsceess The District Court Did Not Address The Issue Before It But Instead Dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint Based On An Issue Irrelevant To The Case. PANEER CRA RO ATSS 15-22 22-26 26 la-23a = Vil TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases: Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) 10, 23, 24, 25 sranch 6000 v. NLRB, 595 F.2d 808. (D.C. Cir. 1979) 16 Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554 (1976) 18 Ratkosky v. United Transportation Union. 843 F.2d 869 (6th Cir. 1988) 1S, 17, 19 Ruzicka v. General Motors Corp., $23 F.2d 306 (6th Cir. 1975) 1S, 17 Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 87 S. Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967) 1% Statutes: 45 U.S.C. § 151 2 45 U.S.C. § 151, First 4 45 U.S.C. § 151, Fifth 3 45 U.S.C. § 152, Seventh 2. 81 45 U.S.C. § 156 2.9. t.. t2 Federal Rules Civil Procedu 56 (c) and } Vill OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL REPORTS OF OPINIONS IN THE CASE Victor G. Grahn; James L. Cooper, Jr.; Richard Daniel Gallagher; Courtney B.L. Edwards; Ronald Wayne Dabe v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Airline Division, Local 608, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO; The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO; United Parcel Service Co.; Independent Pilots Association, Civil Action No. C89-0983-L(B) (W.D. Ky., 12/12/89). Victor G. Grahn; James L. Cooper, Jr.; Richard Daniel Gallagher; Courtney B.L. Edwards; Ronald Wayne Dabe v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Airline Division, Local 608, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO; The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO; United Parcel Service Co.; Independent Pilots Association, No. 92-5286 (6th Cir. 1992). IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1992 VICTOR G. GRAHN; JAMES L. COOPER, JR.; RICHARD DANIEL GALLAGHER; COURTNEY B.L. EDWARDS; DASECPE ED WOON TE PERS BPPRIINS oicennuscaveasuccapamennonns PETITIONERS Ws INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS AIRLINE DIVISION, LOCAL 608, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, -Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO; THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEANSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO; UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO.; INDEPENDENT PILOTS ASSOCIATION........ RESPONDENTS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JURISDICTION The United States Court of Appeals issued its opinion on January 5, 1993, affirming the decision of the United States 2 District Court. District Court jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The jurisdiction of this Court to review this Petition for Writ of Certiorari is invoked under Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1254(1) and 2101(c), and Supreme Court Rules 13 and 14. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES AND RULES INVOLVED IN THE CASE This case involves the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. ("RLA"), which provides at § 152, Seventh: Seventh. Change in pay, rules or working conditions . contrary to agreement or to section 156 forbidden. No carrier, its officers or agents shall change the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions of its employees, as a class as embodied in agreements except in the manner prescribed in such agreements or in section 6 of this Act [45 USCS § 156]. Which provides at § 156: Procedure in changing rates of pay, rules, and working conditions. Carriers and representatives of the employees shall give at least thirty days’ written notice of an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, and the time and place for the beginning of conference between the representatives of the parties interested in such intended changes shall be agreed upon within ten days after the receipt of said notice, and said time shall be within the thirty days provided in the notice. In every case where such notice of intended change has been given, or conferences are being held with reference thereto, or the services of the Mediation Board have been requested by either party, or said board has proffered its services, rates of pay, rules, or working 3 conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon as required by section 5 of this Act [45 USCS § 155], by the Mediation Board, unless a period of ten days has elapsed after termination of conferences without request for or proffer of the services of the Mediation Board. This case also involves Fed.K.Civ.P. 56 which holds at paragraphs (c) and (e) that if the adverse parties’ response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule (pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file) sets forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue as to any material fact, summary judgment is not appropriate. (Appendix 22a) STATEMENT OF THE CASE Plaintiffs are employees as defined in 45 U.S.C. § 151 Fifth and seek injunctive relief, damages, declaratory judgment and other appropriate relief pursuant to the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. Plaintiffs’ underlying Complaint arises out of the Teamsters Union’s' breach of its duty of fair representation and the company’s breach of the collective bargaining agreement. Defendants have changed the working conditions of the Plaintiffs and have changed the language of the collective bargaining agreement depriving Plaintiffs of their rightful seniority status. Plaintiffs allege this was effected in violation of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, in violation of the provisions of the RLA, and in breach of the unions’ duty of fair representation regarding contract changes. Ris : m : Teamsters Union" when used, will refer to Teamsters International, and Teamsters Local 608, collectively 4 Plaintiffs are employed as flight crewmembers by Defendant United Parcel Service Co. (UPS Co.) a wholly owned Subsidiary of United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (UPS America), a holding and management company. UPS Co. is a carrier within the meaning of the RLA 45 U.S.C. § 151, First. Until August 24, 1987, when UPS? announced its decision to assume operational control of its aircraft, UPS contracted with four contract carriers to provide air crews and maintenance crews for the planes owned by the company and leased to the contract carriers. Teamsters International, in conjunction with its affiliate, Local 608, acted as representative for the flight crewmembers in negotiating a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the flight crewmembers and the company.’ Also negotiated at this time, and incorporated in Article 4 of the Supplemental Agreement, was the "Transition Letter of Agreement" to cover, among other issues, special seniority issues during the transition period.‘ The Transition Letter of Agreement was negotiated to "provide the addition of complete crews to the Crewmembers Seniority List in an orderly manner during the return of aircraft to the Company from contractors." e+ UPS" when used, will refer to UPS America and its wholly owned subsidiaries 5This contract is entitled "Flight Crewmember Supplemental Agreement to the National Master UPS Collective Bargaining Agreement.” “The “transition period” refers to the period from August 1987, when UPS first began hiring flight crewmembers, through calendar year 1988 5 The Transition Letter of Agreement assures that employees hired from the four contract carriers’ during the transition period be given a preferential seniority status designated Group I.° Paragraph A of the Transition Letter of Agreement states that: Group I shall be former Company contractor crewmembers who were flying for a Company contractor on or after September 1, 1987, and also crewmembers who are acquired as a result of a merger with, or acquisition of, another carrier. The seniority position of Group I flight crewmembers relative to each other is also defined in paragraph A of the Transition Letter of Agreement, as follows: Group I crewmembers will be hired in position by status and aircraft type. Group I contractor crewmembers will be positioned on the administrative list by those hired September 1, 1987 and earlier, arranged by date of birth followed by those hired after September 1, 1987, arranged by date of birth. As defined by the terms and conditions of the Transition Letter of Agreement, each of the Plaintiffs are Group I employees hired by a contract carrier prior to September 1, 1987. UPS hired its first crewmembers on January 18, 1988. The first seniority list was developed and published in January, 1989. after the transition period had been completed. A thirty-day >The four contract carriers referred to in the Transition Letter of Agreement are: Evergreen Airlines, Inc.; Interstate Airlines, Inc.; Onon Air, and, Ryan Aviation/PHH Air. 6 Group II crewmembers are employees hired from sources other than the four contract carriers, and this category is not an issue in the present action. 6 period was allowed for employees to review and object to the seniority list. According to a memo from William Ferchak, who became Trustee of Teamsters Local 608 in late 1988’, some eighteen grievances were filed within the thirty-day period alleging violations of Article 4 (Seniority) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and alleging violations (Seniority) of the Transition Letter of Agreement. Although Plaintiffs were former contract _ flight crewmembers with Orion Air, hired and flying for the contract carrier before September 1, 1987, they were incorrectly positioned on the seniority list with those employees hired by the contract carriers after September 1, 1987. Article 17 of the flight crewmembers Supplemental Agreement states that: In compliance with Section 204, Title II of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, is hereby established a System Board of Adjustment for the purpose of adjusting and deciding disputes which may arise under the terms of this Agreement and any amendment or additions thereto and which are properly submitted to it, which Board shall be known as “United Parcel Service Crewmembers System Board of Adjustment", herein referred to as the "Board." Pursuant to the terms of the contract, a System Adjustment Board hearing was held in Louisville, Kentucky, in February, 1989 to hear the above-referenced grievances. The 4-0 decision of the February System Adjustment Board interpreted the contract language regarding seniority to mean that: ; Dan Darrow, a Teamster International employee was Trustee prior to Ferchak a 7 All crewmembers hired by the Company in 1988 who were previously working for a company contractor and who were hired by the contractor prior to September 1, 1987, regardless of the date of IOE compietion, shall be placed in Group I; followed by all crewmembers hired by the Company in 1988 who were previously working for a company contractor and who were hired by the contractor on or after September 1, 1987. There shall be no retroactive compensation. A UPS crewmember revised seniority list was issued subsequent to the Board decision reflecting Plaintiffs’ correct seniority position in Group I, which positions them before those contract crewmembers hired by the contract carriers after September 1, 1987. Article 17 of the flight crewmembers Supplemental Agreement clearly states that: The Board shall have jurisdiction over all disputes growing out of grievances or Out of the interpretation or application of any of the terms of this Agreement... The Board shall be competent to hear the disputes properly submitted to it and decide said disputes by a majority vote of all members of the Board. Decision of the Board shall be final and binding upon the parties hereto. (Emphasis added) The February decision of the System Adjustment Board was grieved by employees alleging their seniority was affected by the Board’s decision. Although the Board was bound by the terms of the CBA.to deny these grievances as without merit, since the February Board decision which interpreted the contract language regarding seniority was final and binding on all parties, a special unannounced June System Board was called by William Ferchak, 8 Teamster Trustee of Local 608, and by Neil Konietzko, Air Region Labor Relations Manager for UPS, to specifically hear those grievances.* After hearing the grievances of those whose seniority was allegedly negatively affected by the February Board decision, the June System Board issued a communication dated June 21, 1989, stating that: This case is referred back to a joint company- union committee for resolution. On August 2, 1989, without affording Plaintiffs any hearing, or opportunity to be heard, the company and the union issued an “Agreement” signed by William Ferchak and Neil Konietzko attempting to add new contract terms, and language altering the Collective Bargaining Agreement. As the result of this invalid decision, Plaintiffs were demoted to a new seniority classification arbitrarily entitled "Group I-A," a classification not authorized by the contract or the Transition Letter of Agreement. UPS issued a revised crewmember seniority list on August 2, 1989, simultaneous with the so called "August Agreement", reflecting this confusing, improper and invalid decision. Subsequent to the “August Agreement”, Plaintiffs filed grievances requesting that the Collective Bargaining Agreement/Transition Letter of Agreement, as interpreted by the February System Board, be adhered to and that the arbitrary and invalid “August Agreement" be voided. Plaintiff Grahn’s grievance was denied by the company with the curt statement that there was "no contract violation." The union’s response to Grahn’s grievance was that the grievance was "settled." The union has refused Plaintiff Grahn any meaningful appeal. Further, the Sr erchak (Teamsters Local 608) and Konietzko (representing UPS) were two of the four System Board members who rendered the unanimous February Board decision which definitively interpreted the contract language regarding seniority. The other two were Lee Wallace, UPS Flight Operations Manager, and Robert Miller, union steward. ee 9 union has refused to process the grievances filed by the other Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have thus exhausted all administrative remedies. Since the union has indicated that its decision is fixed, any administrative remedies would be futile and are not required. The Memorandum and Order of the District Court, dated June 18, 1991,states at page 18a of the Appendix: The record shows that the final disposition of the grievance heard in June by the Board was not accomplished by a Board decision in the manner contemplated in Article 17(E) of the Supplemental Agreement. There is no record that the committee ever returned to the board to argue or to support its recommendation, but rather the evidence suggests that the committee submitted the recommeidation directly to the union and the company.“™?” It does not appear that any formal request to negotiate such an agreement was made by either signatory or that the procedures mandated by the Railway Labor Act, Section 156 for changing collective bargaining agreements were followed in its adoption. €\12 There is no written record of the Board's consideration of the recommendation as required in Article 17(M) of the Supplemental Agreement. The June 18, 1991, District Court Memorandum and Order further states: It is undisputed that the proceedings and decision of the February Board conformed with Article 16 and therefore the Board which convened in June did not have the authority to settle the dispute before it. (at 19a) Although the District Court found that “the Board which convened in June did not have the authority to settle the dispute a 10 before it," the Court held the motions of the parties for summary judgment in abeyance. Further, the District Court granted Defendant Local 608, or any other Defendant sixty days in which to brief and submit to the Court any memoranda or evidence regarding apparent authority as to "whether the company and union representatives were authorized to create a ‘side agreement’ purporting to interpret a provision of the Supplemental Agreement resolved previously by a Board ruling." Detendants Teamsters International Union, Teamsters Local 608, and UPS, filed supplemental memoranda on August 19, 1991. Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to respond to Defendants’ supplemental memoranda, and duly filed their responses thereto. On January 24, 1992, the Court entered its Memorandum and Order that the motion of the Plaintiffs for summary judgment against the Defendants be and is hereby denied: and further that the motion of the Defendants for summary judgment on the claims of the Plaintiffs against them be granted and Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with prejudice. (Appendix 4a) The District Court held that: The afiiants attest to the local union officers’ authority to negotiate binding amendments to the Flight Crewmember Supplemental Agreement to the CBA. Plaintiffs do not controvert the affidavits, but argue instead that even if the local union had authority to enter into binding side agreements, the members of the "joint company- union committee" who recommended the change in the contractual provision were "self-serving." Plaintiffs allegations’ are not sufficient to withstand the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 il U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). (Appendix 7a) The District Court did not address, nor give weight to the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file which clearly controverted Defendants’ affidavits, which clearly showed that Plaintiffs’ legal argument and the facts presented supported Plaintiffs’ allegations that the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, and in bad faith. The District Court also failed to address the issue before it, that even if company and union representatives were authorized to create a Side agreement purporting to interpret a provision of the Supplemental Agreement resolved previously by a System Board of Adjustment ruling, the procedures Defendants engaged in did not abide by the terms of the CBA, the provisions of the RLA, or the Union’s duty of fair representation. Plaintiffs appealed the decision of the District Court. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on January 5, 1993, holding that it found "no errors warranting reversal." (Appendix 1a) I. THE DISTRICT COURT DECISION ENTERING SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT WAS ARBITRARY AND IN ERROR AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE IT FAILED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AND IN THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The Railway Labor Act forbids changes in pay, rules or working conditions contrary to the collective bargaining agreement and contrary to 45 U.S.C. § 156. (45 U.S.C. § 152, Seventh) i2 Article 2, Section | of the Master Agreement’ states: No new Supplements, Riders or Addenda to this Agreement shall be negotiated by any of the parties hereto, unless otherwise agreed to by the Employer and the Nationai Negotiating Commitiee. Any Supplement, Rider or Addendum not agreed to by the National Negotiating Committee will be null and void. (Emphasis added) The “August Agreement” changing the terms of the Transition Letter of Agreement, clearly, was not ratified nor agreed to by the National Negotiating Committee and is not only null and void, it is in violation of the CBA which does not provide for a committee, of any number, or any make-up, to negotiate a change in contract language regarding pay, rules or working conditions. Defendant Teamsters Union has stated that the August document was not an "Agreement", but was merely an investigation of all the “evidence compiled." (Deposition of William Ferchak, pp. 66, 68-69). UPS contends that the "August Agreement" was negotiated by the company and the union. (Deposition of Lee A. Wallace, p. 140). Regardless of how it is characterized, the "August Agreement" is invalid. The Collective Bargaining Agreement does not provide for a "joint company- union committee" to unilaterally and arbitrarily create new contract language, nor does it allow for secret company-union negotiations to change contract language. Section 156 of the RLA sets forth certain procedures in changing rates of pay, rules and working conditions. These *The Flight Crewmembers Supplemental Agreement does not address the issue of mders or addenda to the contract —— ————“‘