Today, the Court hearing the Injunction by AA against the Association released their opinion on some contested law brought up by the Association.
It didn't go well for them.
In general, these are the arguments and the opinion.
1. Association argues the Norris-LaGuardia Act (NLGA), prohibits injunctive relief against "union activity" (airlines are covered under the Railway Labor Act, not the NLGA)
COURT OPINION: "...the court considers that the Fifth Circuit has left it no choice but to conclude that section 6 of the NLGA is not applicable..."
2. The Association argues that under the NLGA, the Company has to exhaust all other means of resolution to negotiations before an injunction could be applied. Those resolutions includes negotiating a contract or pursuing remedy via the grievance and arbitration mechanisms.
COURT OPINION: "The court concludes that section 8 of the NLGA does not require [American] to make reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute regarding the alleged slowdown."
3. The Association argues they can't be held responsible to make "all reasonable measures to stop concerted activity by their members if [the Association has] not participated, authorized or ratified it."
COURT OPINION: "...the court concludes that a union has a duty to take every reasonable effort to stop its members' unlawful concerted activity, even if they have not participated in, authorized, or ratified it."
4. The Association makes a similar argument as in number 2 but this time under the Railway Labor Act and seemingly includes disciplining mechanics engaged in the alleged slowdown and using that mechanism to try and stop the actions the Company sees as illegal rather than an injunction.
COURT OPINION: "The Supreme Court has made it clear that a court may only enjoin a [unions] violation of Section 2, First of the RLA if an injunction is the only practical, effective means of enforcing the duty to exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements...In its brief, [American] did not appear to raise a meaningful disagreement with that rule, but rather argued that its failure to discipline individual employees or engage in arbitration should not bar the injunction it requested. That is not the question presented to the court, and the court will not resolve it here. [American] may well argue that such discipline or arbitration is not a practical and effective means of enforcing defendants' duty, but it must meet the above-cited standard."
That's an 0 for 4.