Kasel v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 6 2002
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JOHN KASEL; Y. G. ARIAS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE
ENGINEERS, an unincorporated labor
organization; LOCAL UNION NO.
103 BROTHERHOOD OF
LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, an
unincorporated labor organization;
No. 01-1088
LOCAL UNION NO. 451
(D.C. No. 99-M-859)
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE
(D. Colo.)
ENGINEERS, an unincorporated labor
organization; DIVISION 29
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE
ENGINEERS, an unincorporated labor
organization; UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation; and JOHN DOES 1-10,
individuals,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Before EBEL, GIBSON **, and PORFILIO, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-Appellants John Kasel and Y.G. Arias are engineers with Union
Pacific Railroad Company (“UP”) and members of the Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers (“BLE”) who were displaced as a result of the UP-
Southern Pacific merger. They have brought claims for breach of contract and
promissory estoppel against UP and claims for breach of the duty of fair
representation against BLE. Appellants claim that UP violated a commitment
made to the BLE negotiators that Appellants would keep the new Long Pool turns
to which they were assigned after the merger unless there was a significant
decrease in business. Appellants also contend that UP violated commitments that
their vacation rights would be recognized based on their pre-merger seniority, and
that they would be entitled to bump to Fireman positions in the event that they
were displaced from their Long Pool positions.
The district court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over Appellants’ claims
against UP because the claims were subject to mandatory arbitration pursuant to
the New York Dock conditions agreed to by UP when it sought the Surface
Transportation Board’s approval of the merger. See New York Dock Ry.-Control-
Brooklyn Eastern Dist., 360 I.C.C. 60, 84-90 (1979). The district court also ruled
**
Honorable John R. Gibson, Circuit Judge, United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
-2-
that Appellants’ claims against BLE were time-barred, and that the record did not
support a finding that BLE breached its duty of fair representation. Accordingly,
the district court granted summary judgment to UP and BLE and dismissed
Appellants’ suit.
Appellants challenge each of the district court’s rulings. After reviewing
the briefs and record in this case, we agree with the district court’s conclusions.
For substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-3-