| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the case of Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO et al., 1980, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Northwest Airlines (NWA). The dispute arose when NWA laid off a number of its employees due to economic difficulties and later rehired them but without restoring their seniority rights fully. The Transport Workers Union filed a lawsuit against this action arguing that it violated Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act which requires employers to maintain existing pay rates and working conditions until they negotiate changes with their employees' representative. However, the court held that layoffs were not "changes" within meaning of Section 6 because they did not alter terms or conditions contained in collective bargaining agreements; instead they were responses to external economic circumstances outside employer's control. Therefore, NWA was under no obligation to bargain over decision itself or effects on individual workers before implementing layoffs.
In the dissenting opinion for Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO et al., Justice Brennan argued that the Railway Labor Act (RLA) should not be interpreted to preclude a federal court from awarding damages against an employer who has breached its duty to maintain conditions during negotiations under Section 6 of RLA. He contended that such interpretation would undermine the purpose and policy of RLA - promoting peaceful labor relations in transportation industries by encouraging collective bargaining and preventing disruptions due to changes in agreements affecting rates of pay or working conditions until after negotiation procedures have been exhausted. The majority's decision, according to him, effectively immunizes employers from liability for unilateral changes made while negotiations are ongoing which could potentially lead them to draw out these processes indefinitely without fear of financial consequences thereby disrupting balance between parties' interests intended by Congress when it enacted RLA.