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.

ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS-CWA v. AM. EAGLE AIRLINES

September 19, 2005.

ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS-CWA, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC., Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHARLES NORGLE, District Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO ("AFA") filed its Complaint against American Eagle Airlines, Inc. ("AE") alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. AFA seeks to enforce a binding arbitration award against AE issued by the American Eagle Flight Attendant System Board of Adjustment ("System Board"). AFA further seeks an order directing AE to comply with the terms of the System Board and to comply with AFA's requests to inspect personnel files. The Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") provides that all minor disputes are subject to exclusive and mandatory arbitration. For the that reason, the court, sua sponte, dismisses the Complaint for improper venue.

I. BACKGROUND

  A. Facts

  AFA and AE entered into a CBA on March 2, 1998, which continued through March 2, 2002. Each year thereafter, the CBA renewed itself annually. Sections Twenty-One and Twenty-Two of the CBA establish procedures for filing grievances. The grievance process culminates in a final and binding arbitration before the three-member System Board.

  On April 1, 1999, an arbitration hearing was held with the System Board regarding the termination of flight attendant Sherri Mayes ("Mayes"). The issue at the arbitration hearing was AE's refusal to allow Mayes or AFA to copy her personnel file. AFA claimed that Section 27(C) of the CBA gave Mayes the right to review her file, otherwise she would be unable to respond to the charges brought against her. AE alleges that Section 27(C) only applies to "flight attendants" and as a result of her termination, Mayes was no longer a flight attendant. The arbitrator did not find AE's argument persuasive, and held that AFA should have been given the opportunity to inspect Mayes' file before the arbitration hearing.

  Several days after the decision in the Mayes arbitration, Diana Kishaba ("Kishaba"), the local union vice president for AFA, requested the file of another terminated flight attendant, Stacy Hall ("Hall"). AE denied the request. Hall was eventually reinstated, therefore AFA did not pursue the denial of her personnel file. However, Kishaba asked an AE official for the file of Dineen Hicks ("Hicks"), another terminated flight attendant. That request was granted. AFA did not make any other requests for terminated flight attendants personnel records until 2001.

  In January 2001, Pam Gibson ("Gibson"), a terminated flight attendant requested to inspect her personnel file pursuant to Section 27(C) of the CBA. AE refused to give Gibson her file, stating that Section 27(C) only applied to current employees. Gibson filed a grievance regarding AE's refusal to allow her to inspect her personnel file, and on December 10, 2001, the System Board held a hearing on the grievance. On March 16, 2002, the System Board issued its decision by Arbitrator Nicolau ("Nicolau Award"). The Nicolau Award stated that any flight attendant who was terminated, and who had filed an appeal of the termination has a right to inspect and copy her or his personnel file under Section 27(C) of the CBA.

  AFA alleges that AE violated the Nicolau Award by "cherry picking" certain documents to withhold from employees' personnel files, and claiming such documents were not part of the personnel file. Specifically, AFA claims that after flight attendant Jose Leon ("Leon") was terminated, AE provided him with a copy of his personnel file that was missing a passenger letter. AE informed Leon that he was not entitled to read the letter. Additionally, after flight attendant Esau Flores ("Flores") was terminated, he requested and received a copy of his personnel file. AFA alleges that the file did not contain a report about the incident that lead to Flores' termination. AFA further alleges that AE's practice of cherry picking personnel files is a violation of the Nicolau Award.

  B. Procedural History

  AFA filed its initial Complaint on April 6, 2005, and its Amended Complaint on July 8. On August 8, 2005, AE filed its Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). AFA filed its Response on August 14, and AE Replied on August 26. Because the issue in this case deals with venue rather than jurisdiction, the court, sua sponte, dismisses the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), instead of Rule 12(b)(1).

  II. DISCUSSION

  A. Standard of Review

  1. Federal Court ...


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.