## Facts

- Northwest Airlines, a Railway Labor Act (RLA) carrier, entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy and sought labor cost reductions.
- A bankruptcy court, acting under 11 U.S.C. § 1113, authorized Northwest to reject its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with flight attendants and to implement new employment terms.
- Flight attendants later selected the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA) as their bargaining representative.
- AFA announced plans for strike activity, including intermittent work stoppages, in response to Northwest’s implementation of new terms.
- Northwest sought an injunction to prevent the strike.
- The bankruptcy court denied injunctive relief, reasoning that § 1113 rejection and implementation altered the RLA “status quo” and allowed union self-help.
- The district court reversed and issued a preliminary injunction barring AFA from strikes and work stoppages.
- AFA and an intervening pilots’ union appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a union may strike immediately under the RLA after a bankruptcy court authorizes rejection of a CBA and unilateral implementation of new terms under 11 U.S.C. § 1113.
2. Whether court-authorized rejection and implementation constitute a carrier’s unilateral change in the RLA “status quo” that releases the union from RLA limits on self-help before statutory bargaining and mediation procedures are exhausted.
3. Whether a federal court may enjoin the threatened strike to enforce RLA duties notwithstanding general federal labor anti-injunction policy.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction barring AFA from striking or engaging in work stoppages.
- The court held that § 2 First of the RLA forbids immediate strike activity in response to a court-approved § 1113 rejection and implementation.
- The court concluded that § 1113 rejection and implementation, when judicially authorized, do not amount to an impermissible unilateral change in the RLA status quo that triggers a right to self-help.
- The court determined the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding likely success on the merits, irreparable harm, and that the public interest favored uninterrupted air service and orderly reorganization.

## Legal Principles

- Under RLA § 2 First, both carriers and unions have a continuing duty to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements and to avoid interruptions to commerce; that duty supports limiting self-help until RLA procedures are exhausted.
- A court-approved rejection of a CBA under 11 U.S.C. § 1113 does not, by itself, free a union to engage in immediate strike activity under the RLA.
- For RLA purposes, the “status quo” is a legal constraint intended to preserve labor peace while RLA bargaining and mediation processes operate; it is not limited to the literal terms of a written CBA.
- When new employment terms are implemented pursuant to a § 1113 order, the parties remain bound by RLA dispute-resolution requirements, and immediate strikes may be enjoined to enforce those requirements.
- A preliminary injunction is appropriate where the carrier shows likely success that a strike would violate the RLA, irreparable harm to reorganization and the public, and that equities and public interest favor maintaining operations.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that a bankruptcy court’s authorization under § 1113 to reject a CBA and implement new terms does not eliminate the RLA’s status-quo and § 2 First duties, and it affirmed an injunction preventing the union from striking until the RLA’s bargaining and mediation processes are completed.


Nw. Airlines Corp. v. Ass’n of Flight Attendants-CWA, 483 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007)