It isn’t often we get to discuss the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”), but a fun bit of trivia us labor and employment attorneys like to throw out there is that it actually applies to airline employees! Feel free to use that one at your next social gathering and be the life of the party.
Anyway, in 2023, Sun Country’s fleet service employees unionized, and was to be represented by the Teamsters (“IBT”). Within weeks of the unionization, two employees who were “instrumental” in the unionization effort were terminated, both for alleged unexcused absences. The union brought a case alleging that Sun Country violated the RLA, in that the employees’ terminations interfered with employees’ rights to designate their choice of representative under the Act. The union sought an injunction prohibiting Sun Country from interfering with employees’ collective bargaining rights and reinstating the job of the two terminated employees, along with costs and damages.
Sun Country moved for partial dismissal of the complaint, arguing that IBT lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of non-party employees. In order to have standing on behalf of its members, a union must demonstrate:
- Its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own rights;
- The interests the union seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and
- Neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.
While individual participation is not normally necessary when an association seeks injunctive relief for its members, it is typically required in an action for damages to an association’s members. The Eighth Circuit district court found that the participation of the two terminated employees was required to determine the extent of injuries sustained, the propriety of their terminations, and their pay and expected pay, and the claim could not continue without them. The court found that the union even lacked standing to seek injunctive relief, as such would require individualized proof and require the former employees’ participation. Because the employees were not included in the original complaint, the motion to dismiss was granted.
While many of our clients may not be dealing with issues such as this on a regular basis, it is important to know that prior to addressing any substantive claims from employees, employers must do their due diligence in determining whether the employees, or their representative, have followed the necessary steps in bringing claims against their employer. Whether it be adhering to timelines, filing claims with the necessary administrative agencies, or including all necessary parties, employee representatives need to follow the rules. Don’t sell yourself in defending your actions. If you, or your organization need assistance in responding to employee claims, contact Wiley Reber Law, for legal advice that works.