B. Analysis
There is strong support here for a preliminary injunction.
1. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits.
a. A union must have an objectively legitimate purpose to
repudiate its duty to honor a final and binding resolution of a
seniority dispute.
Judges Wake and Silver ruled that USAPA must have a legitimate reason to use a
date-of-hire seniority list rather than the Nicolau Award list. (SOF ¶¶ 74, 83.) Nothing
has since occurred that leads to a different result. That alone is a strong showing of a high
likelihood of success.
Judges Wake and Silver relied on sound legal authority, beginning with the general
rule that union conduct “unrelated to legitimate union interests” is wrongful. Robesky v.
Oantas Empire Airways Ltd., 573 F.2d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir. 1978). This applies with
particular force where unions “alter seniority rights.” Johnson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland
Co., 203 F. Supp. 636, 638 (D.C. Mich. 1962). That is because altering seniority “favor
some members at the expense of others.” Laborers & Hod Carriers Loc. No. 341 v.
NLRB, 564 F.2d 834, 840 (9th Cir. 1977).
In Barton Brands, Ltd. v. NLRB, 529 F.2d 793, 800 (7th Cir. 1976), the Seventh
Circuit held that a union must “show some objective justification” when it reord
seniority. Sixteen years later, it affirmed Barton Brands, holding that “a union may not
juggle the seniority roster for no reason other than to advance one group of employees
over another.” Rakestraw v. United Airlines, Inc., 981 F.2d 1524, 1537 (7th Cir. 1992).
The Ninth Circuit also holds that a union must have a “legitimate purpose” to reorder
seniority. Laborers & Hod Carriers, 564 F.2d at 840.
The law is well-settled. A union must have an objectively legitimate purpose—
something other than a desire to satisfy a majority faction—to reorder seniority. It
logically follows that a union must also have an objectively legitimate purpose to
repudiate a duty to implement a final and binding resolution of a seniority dispute.
