Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng'rs v. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
210 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2000)


Facts

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, et al. (unions) (plaintiffs) engaged in failed collective bargaining negotiations with Springfield Terminal Railroad Company (Springfield) (defendant) and later entered into mediation, pursuant to the Railway Labor Act (RLA) , 45 U.S.C. § 151-88. The RLA provided that during mediation, the status quo should govern. In other words, a union may not strike and a railroad carrier may not implement any new policies or otherwise engage in new labor practices while mediation is ongoing. During the mediation, the unions declined to accept wage cuts. Shortly thereafter, and still during mediation, Springfield hired Aroostook and Bangor Resources (ABR) (defendant) to perform switching work that the unions typically performed. Springfield was a wholly owned subsidiary of Guilford Transportation Industries, Inc. (Guilford). Guilford was closely held by four men. Three of those men were also the sole owners of ABR. Moreover, Springfield, Guilford, and ABR had the same four directors: the four owners of Guilford. In addition, the individual who initially reached out to ABR about the switching work was the “key player” in the negotiations that had failed. Finally, the ABR representative who decided that ABR would perform the switching was one of the owners of Guilford and directors of Springfield. The unions brought suit seeking to enjoin ABR from conducting the switching while the mediation with Springfield was ongoing. The district court granted the injunction. Springfield appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Lipez, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Dissent (Stahl, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.