1. Two forums exist to resolve RLA disputes, the federal courts and arbitration. Explain the broad classification system used to determine which forum is appropriate to solve the controversy.
2. Explain the procedures used to resolve major and minor disputes under the RLA.
3. How did the court decide this case?

[Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) proposed the sale of approximately 290 miles of BNSF’s rail line to the New Mexico Department of Transportation. New Mexico sought to obtain the rail line as part of a plan to provide commuter rail service between Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and other points within the state. Under the terms of sale, New Mexico would obtain ownership of BNSF’s rail lines, but reserve to BNSF a concurrent freight easement on the lines. New Mexico would also take over maintenance responsibilities of the right-of-way, an obligation previously belonging to BNSF.

In an effort to prevent New Mexico from assuming the maintenance responsibilities, two union organizations representing rail workers who had previously performed the maintenance work sued. They contended that the assignment of the maintenance obligations (1) violated § 2, Seventh of the Railway Labor Act and (2) breached the collective bargaining agreement between the workers and BNSF. The district court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction and the unions appealed.]

TYMKOVICH, C.J. …

Analysis

On appeal, the rail workers argue the district court erred in concluding the Adjustment Board has exclusive jurisdiction over their claims….

A. Legal Framework for Resolving RLA Disputes

The RLA provides a comprehensive and mandatory framework for resolving labor disputes under collective bargaining agreements. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 252 … (1994). It aims “to encourage collective bargaining by railroads and their employees in order to prevent, if possible, wasteful strikes and interruptions of interstate commerce.” United Transp. Union v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 528 F.3d 674, 677–678 (9th Cir. 2008)….

The RLA sets forth two provisions relevant to the workers’ claims. The first is … § 2, Seventh. Under this provision, no carrier “shall change the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions of its employees, as a class, as embodied in agreements except in the manner prescribed in such agreements or in § 6 of [the RLA].” Pursuant to § 6, … carriers must give notice of major changes to pay, rules, or working conditions and, if arbitration is requested, maintain the status quo ante during the proceedings. The rail workers contend BNSF breached the “scope of work” provisions contained in its collective bargaining agreement and thereby violated § 2, Seventh by improperly contracting the maintenance responsibilities on the rail lines to New Mexico.

RLA disputes can be resolved either in federal court or in the Adjustment Board through binding arbitration. To determine which forum is appropriate in the first instance, the Supreme Court has created a twopart classification system: If a dispute is “major,” it is not subject to Adjustment Board arbitration and should be resolved in federal court. If a dispute is “minor,” binding arbitration before the Adjustment Board is mandatory. This appeal requires us to determine whether the disagreement between the rail workers and BNSF qualifies as a major or minor dispute.