Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractattorneyleasegood faithbad faith
mediationattorneygood faithbad faith

Related Cases

Long v. Dell, Inc., 93 A.3d 988
View Case »
Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co., 35 F.2d 301, 66 A.L.R. 735
View Case »
Olson v. Etheridge, 177 Ill.2d 396, 686 N.E.2d 563, 226 Ill.Dec. 780
View Case »
DK Arena, Inc. v. EB Acquisitions I, LLC, 112 So.3d 85, 38 Fla. L. Weekly S187
View Case »
Reger Development, LLC v. National City Bank, 592 F.3d 759
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Association of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO v. Horizon Air Industries, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1990 WL 300312, 135 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2855

Facts

The AFA became the representative for Horizon's flight attendants in August 1987 after a secret ballot election. Following the certification, Horizon opposed the unionization efforts through various means, including distributing a training manual that discouraged unionization and making threatening comments to flight attendants. Over the next three years, Horizon engaged in surface bargaining, refused to release flight attendants for negotiation sessions, and presented contract proposals that were designed to be rejected, demonstrating a lack of intent to negotiate in good faith.

On August 7, 1987, AFA became the representative of the flight attendants employed by Horizon pursuant to a secret ballot election conducted by the National Mediation Board (“NMB”) under the RLA. During the union's organizing campaign which took place during the spring and summer of 1987, Horizon opposed the organization of its flight attendants. This opposition is reflected in the company's training manual which was distributed to management employees during the organizing campaign and which is still in use.

Issue

Did Horizon Air Industries violate its duty under the Railway Labor Act to engage in good faith bargaining with the Association of Flight Attendants?

Did Horizon Air Industries violate its duty under the Railway Labor Act to engage in good faith bargaining with the Association of Flight Attendants?

Rule

Under the Railway Labor Act, carriers are required to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions. A failure to do so occurs when a party engages in surface bargaining or demonstrates a lack of intent to reach an agreement.

Under the Railway Labor Act, carriers are required to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions. A failure to do so occurs when a party engages in surface bargaining or demonstrates a lack of intent to reach an agreement.

Analysis

The court found that Horizon's actions, including its evasive bargaining tactics, refusal to negotiate in good faith, and derogatory comments about the bargaining process, indicated a clear intent to frustrate negotiations. Horizon's proposals were consistently unpalatable to AFA, and its refusal to engage meaningfully in the bargaining process demonstrated a disregard for the collective bargaining requirements of the RLA.

The court found that Horizon's actions, including its evasive bargaining tactics, refusal to negotiate in good faith, and derogatory comments about the bargaining process, indicated a clear intent to frustrate negotiations. Horizon's proposals were consistently unpalatable to AFA, and its refusal to engage meaningfully in the bargaining process demonstrated a disregard for the collective bargaining requirements of the RLA.

Conclusion

The court concluded that Horizon violated its duty under the RLA to engage in good faith bargaining with AFA and ordered Horizon to cease its obstructive conduct. AFA was awarded attorney's fees and costs incurred in maintaining the action.

The court concluded that Horizon violated its duty under the RLA to engage in good faith bargaining with AFA and ordered Horizon to cease its obstructive conduct. AFA was awarded attorney's fees and costs incurred in maintaining the action.

Who won?

The Association of Flight Attendants prevailed in the case because the court found that Horizon had engaged in bad faith bargaining and failed to meet its obligations under the Railway Labor Act.

The Association of Flight Attendants prevailed in the case because the court found that Horizon had engaged in bad faith bargaining and failed to meet its obligations under the Railway Labor Act.

You must be