Unite Here International Union v. Sky Chefs, Inc. ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITE HERE INTERNATIONAL UNION, No. 22-55608
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:22-cv-01938-PA-PVC
v.
SKY CHEFS, INC., MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 12, 2023
Pasadena, California
Before: M. SMITH, FRIEDLAND, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
UNITE HERE International Union appeals the district court’s order
dismissing this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the case
involves a “minor dispute” under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C.
§§ 151–188. “We review de novo, as a question of law and of subject matter
jurisdiction, whether a dispute is major or minor under the [RLA].” Ass’n of Flight
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Attendants v. Mesa Air Grp., Inc., 567 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2009). Because
the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here, except as
necessary to provide context to our ruling. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
1. In April 2022, Sky Chefs, Inc. (Sky Chefs) made unilateral changes to its
healthcare offerings at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Under the new
system, Sky Chefs no longer offers its Consumer-Driven Health Care Plan.
Instead, Sky Chefs provides a new Copay Healthcare Plan (LAX Plan) for which
Sky Chefs pays 100% of individual employees’ premiums. While the LAX Plan
reduces the deductible and co-pays for individual employees, it increases employee
premiums for coverage of spouses and children. Employees are automatically
enrolled in the LAX Plan and may opt out only if they can show proof of alternate
coverage and apply for an exemption from the City of Los Angeles. Because the
new LAX Plan exceeds the $5.67 per hour benefit required by the Living Wage
Ordinance, see L.A. Admin. Code, div. 10, ch. 1, art. 11, §§ 10.37.1 et seq.
(LWO), Sky Chefs stopped paying the additional wages previously required under
the ordinance.
We disagree that this case involves a “minor dispute.” “Where an employer
asserts a contractual right to take the contested action, the ensuing dispute is minor
if the action is arguably justified by the terms of the parties’ collective-bargaining
2
agreement. Where, in contrast, the employer’s claims are frivolous or obviously
insubstantial, the dispute is major.” Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Lab. Execs.’ Ass’n,
491 U.S. 299, 307 (1989) (Conrail). Although Sky Chefs may unilaterally raise
wages under the collective bargaining agreement (the Master National Agreement
(MNA)) per the Management Rights provision, Sky Chefs cannot lower wages
without negotiation. Here, without adhering to the interest arbitration provisions in
the MNA, or the negotiation provisions of Section 6 of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 152Seventh, Sky Chefs lowered certain employees’ wages by as much as $5.67 per
hour. The MNA, which predates the LWO, makes no distinction between “health
benefit wages” and “cash wages,” and the health benefits are not less expensive for
employees who need coverage for spouses or children. Sky Chefs’ changes
therefore go beyond “merely offering better health benefits through a different
means,” and instead violate the express terms of the MNA, giving rise to a single,
“major dispute.” See id.; see also O’Donnell v. Wien Air Alaska, Inc., 551 F.2d
1141, 1147 (9th Cir. 1977) (“[T]he very nexus converts the entire context into a
major dispute.”).
2. The issue of injunctive relief is not properly presented for us to resolve on
appeal. As Sky Chefs argues, there are complex remedial issues that need to be
resolved prior to the issuance of any status quo injunction. We remand for the
district court to address such issues and to determine the scope of any injunction in
3
the first instance. See Detrich v. Ryan, 740 F.3d 1237, 1248–49 (9th Cir. 2013) (en
banc), overruled on other grounds by Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. 336 (2022) (“A
standard practice . . . is to remand to the district court for a decision in the first
instance without requiring any special justification for so doing.”).
3. On remand, a showing of irreparable harm is not needed before an injunction
to maintain the status quo may be entered. “[D]istrict courts have subject-matter
jurisdiction to enjoin a violation of the status quo pending completion of the
required procedures, without the customary showing of irreparable injury.”
Conrail, 491 U.S. at 303.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
4