The United Transportation Union (UTU), a representative of the employees of Burlington-Northern Railroad Company, notified the railroad of a new request governing the compensation of train crews. The union requested that road or yard crews working without a fireman receive extra compensation and that firemen working with a reduced train or yard crew receive extra compensation. The carrier characterized this request as improper and barred by a previous agreement with the union that imposed a moratorium on the change of payment for certain train crews. The union maintained its request was not barred by the moratorium provision and invoked mediation of the matter under the RLA. At mediation, the parties agreed to submit the issue of the moratorium clause to arbitration and, in the meantime, recess mediation. After the conference, however, the union asked if negotiations could be continued without submitting the moratorium issue to arbitration. The railroad understood the union request to mean that the issue would not be submitted to arbitration, provided the UTU did not strike on that issue. On April 1, the National Mediation Board acknowledged that mediation was recessed with agreement of the parties. On April 13, the UTU struck Burlington-Northern over the crew payments issue. On April 23, the railroad submitted the moratorium issue to arbitration.
Burlington-Northern sought an injunction prohibiting the union from striking over this issue. The UTU maintained its right to resort to a strike under the RLA.
What factors must be considered by the court before a strike injunction may be issued? Should an injunction be granted in this case? Decide. [Burlington-Northern Railroad v. UTU, 110 LRRM 2340 (N.D. Ill.)]