IAM et al v. BNSF, et al

IAM, et al. v. BNSF, et al.  In separate actions, IAM joined with other rail unions to challenge unilateral changes imposed by the rail carriers with respect to FMLA-qualifying absences that conflict with the national vacation agreement.  The rail carriers responded by filing their own lawsuits against the unions in Texas and Florida.  All of the cases were consolidated before one judge in federal court in Chicago.  At the end of the year, the Judge ruled in our favor declaring that “[t]he FMLA does not allow employers to violate pre-existing contractual obligations.  If CBA provisions grant employees the right to determine when, or in what manner, they utilize certain types of paid vacation and personal leave, those CBA provisions prevent employers from substituting such leave for FMLA leave.”  The carriers are expected to appeal the decision.