Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Airline Division and Airline Professionals Association of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 1224 v. Alaska Air Group, Inc

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

July 6, 2018

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, AIRLINE DIVISION and AIRLINE PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 1224, Plaintiffs,
v.
ALASKA AIR GROUP, INC, and HORIZON AIR INDUSTRIES. INC., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

          Marsha J. Pechman, United States District Judge.

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 27.) Having reviewed the Motion, the Response (Dkt. No. 51), the Reply (Dkt. No. 53), the Supplemental Briefs (Dkt. Nos. 74, 78), and all related papers, and having considered the parties' submissions at oral argument, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1).

         Background

         Plaintiffs International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Airline Division and the Airline Professionals Association of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 1224 (collectively, the “Union”) filed this action against Defendants Alaska Air Group, Inc. (“AAG”) and Horizon Air Industries, Inc. (“Horizon”)[1] seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (Dkt. No. 20 at ¶ 1.)

         The Union alleges that, under the terms of a 2016 Letter of Agreement (“LOA”), AAG and Horizon committed to acquiring no fewer than 30 Embraer-175 regional jet aircraft (“E175s”), to be flown exclusively by Horizon pilots represented by the Union (the “Union Pilots”). (Id. at ¶ 2.) In Counts I and II, the Union alleges that Defendants have violated the LOA by allowing SkyWest Airlines (“SkyWest”) to operate five of these E175s (the “SkyWest E175s”). (Id. at ¶¶ 40, 43.) In Count III, the Union alleges that Defendants' decision was motivated by “anti-union animus” and intended “to embarrass, discredit, and diminish the Union in the eyes of its members . . . drive it from the labor market, and, ultimately, destroy it.” (Id. at ¶ 46.)

         Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 27.) Thereafter, the Court ordered expedited discovery to allow the Union to respond to Defendants' jurisdictional arguments. (Dkt. No. 32.) That discovery has now been completed, and reveals the following facts relevant to this Motion:

         A. The LOA

         On February 1, 2016, Horizon and the Union entered into a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), which incorporated the LOA. (Dkt. No. 27 at 11.) The LOA provides, in relevant part, as follows:

1. Regional Jet Order
A. It is the intention of AAG to request authority from the Board of Directors to place an order for 30 (thirty) firm (“Firm”) and 30 (thirty) optional (“Option”) regional jets with anticipated deliveries beginning in 2017 (herein “Order” or “the Order”).
B. This Letter of Agreement and the amended CBA known as the 2016 CBA is contingent on (1) obtaining authorization of the Board of Directors to place the Order, and, (2) on reaching acceptable terms and a binding agreement with an aircraft manufacturer/lessor for delivery of the aircraft.
2. Flying Commitment . . .
B. Firm Aircraft
1. None of the Firm aircraft acquired and placed into revenue service under the Order shall be flown by airlines in which AAG does not have a controlling interest in order to fulfill a capacity purchase agreement with an entity in which AAG has a controlling interest unless the flying is performed by the Pilots.
2. None of the Firm aircraft acquired and placed into revenue service under the Order shall be flown by airlines in which AAG has a controlling interest in order to fulfill a capacity purchase agreement with an entity in which AAG has a controlling interest unless the flying is performed by the Pilots.
3. This commitment for 30 (thirty) Firm aircraft shall be reduced by any aircraft acquired and placed for flying by the Pilots through a lease or purchase from another party outside the terms of this Letter of Agreement.
. . .
7. Delivery Commitment: No. fewer than thirty (30) aircraft by ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.