Moore v. District of Kansas Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUL 5 2001
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ROGER L. (BUCKY) MOORE, and
all others similarly situated,
No. 00-3219
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. District of Kansas
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE (D.C. No. 99-CV-1214-JTM)
ENGINEERS; UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , Chief Judge, REAVLEY ** , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellant Roger Moore appeals from summary judgment against
his claims that his collective bargaining representative (Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers) and his employer (Union Pacific Railroad) colluded to
violate his rights to fair representation and his rights under the union constitution.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The 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.
**
Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, United States Senior Circuit Judge for the
Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.
The district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction for several reasons and that
Moore’s fair-representation claim is barred by the union membership’s ratification
of the implementing agreement between Brotherhood and Union Pacific. The
court also stated that the defendants would be entitled to summary judgment. We
affirm for the following reason.
Moore has presented no evidence beyond the union agreement itself in
support of his fair-representation claim or his claim to seniority rights. Likewise,
he has offered no evidence that Union Pacific acted inappropriately. Therefore,
his fair-representation claim fails. For the same reason, no violation of the union
constitution is presented.
However, our holding does not preclude a claim that the collective
bargaining agreements were unfair to Moore or suggest any decision as to whether
that claim could be arbitrable under the New York Dock conditions, 1 or before the
National Railroad Adjustment Board. 2
AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Thomas M. Reavley
Senior Circuit Judge
1
See New York Dock Ry. v. United States, 609 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1979).
2
See 45 U.S.C. § 153, First (i).
-2-