Rail Union Extends ‘Cooling Off’ Period

One of the railroad labor unions that rejected an amended contract has agree to extend its cooling  off period to be in line with other unions that also rejected the contract.

The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and the National Carriers Conference Committee, which represents railroad management, agreed to maintain the status quo through midnight Dec. 9.

That same date has been agreed to by three other unions who members rejected the contract. Eight other railroad labor unions voted to ratify the contract.

A national railroad work stoppage could begin as soon as 12:01 a.m. on Dec. 9 unless the two sides agree to a different contract, they extend the cooling off period to allow for more negotiations, or Congress steps in to foreclose a work stoppage.

A Primmer on What Lies Ahead in the Coming Weeks in the Rail Labor Contract Dispute

Writing on the website of Railway Age, Frank Wilner said predicting what will happen in the next phase of the contract talks between railroad labor unions and management is akin to trying to find a black cat in a dark room.

It’s an apt description because neither side is going to reveal what it is willing to give up and what it absolutely must have in the negotiations to amend the contract that governs wages, benefits and work rules at most Class 1 railroads and many smaller ones. Tipping your hand is not a good negotiating strategy even if bluffing and posturing might be.

The major talking point of most stories to date is that a national railroad work stoppage looms as early as Dec. 4, the date one of the unions rejecting the contract has said is the earliest it might strike. Other stories have given Dec. 9 as the most likely date a work stoppage could begin.

At this point the railroad contract negotiations have become a contest of wills with each side seeking to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their adversary and how best to exploit those.

Under the federal Railway Labor Act contracts in the railroad industry never expire but can be amended, which is what is going on now.

Talks to amend the contract began in early 2020. It is typical for contract talks to drag out for years before reaching an agreement.

What we know at this point is that members of four of the 12 railroad labor unions involved in the negotiations have rejected the proposed amended contract.

Those unions and the percentage they represent of the approximately 115,000 railroad workers they represent include the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (19 percent), Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (6 percent), International Association of Boilermakers and Blacksmiths (1 percent) and SMART-TD, excluding yardmasters (30 percent).

The eight unions that have ratified the tentative agreement and the percentage of the total their members represent are the American Train Dispatchers Association (1 percent), Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (20 percent), Brotherhood of Railway Carmen (7 percent), International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (5 percent), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (5 percent), Mechanical Division of SMART (1 percent), National Conference of Firemen and Oilers (2 percent), and the Transportation Communications Union (3 percent). 

Although it remains to be seen how the contract dispute will eventually be resolved, there are a number of directions it could go.

The four unions that rejected the contract could reach a different – and presumably from their standpoint better – agreement than the one they turned down. If so, those provisions would be applied to the contracts already ratified.

There is widespread agreement on both sides that this is the best option. But is it the most realistic one?

The carriers have issued public statements saying they will not offer any more concessions and that any changes in the proposed contract amendments must be in alignment with the recommendations of a presidential emergency board tissues its findings for a new contract back in August.

That statement was posturing even if it probably reflects generally how the carriers view the negotiations.

That is bad news for the unions who through their own public statements have said the sticking point is not how much money their members will make in wages – the two sides have agreed on that – but a demand for paid sick time off from work.

Another avenue is the leaders of the unions rejecting the contract could override the will of their members and agree to submit the contract dispute to binding arbitration.

This doesn’t happen often, but it has occurred, most recently in 1996 when officers of the United Transportation Union overrode member rejection of a tentative agreement in favor of binding arbitration.

If negotiations fail, there are several ways the dispute can go but all of them lead back to Congress imposing a settlement.

It would be a matter of how lawmakers choose to do that. Congress has stepped in before, most recently 1992, the last time a national railroad work stoppage occurred.

Congress could impose terms of a settlement, it could order the appointment of a new presidential emergency board or it could direct the parties to submit to binding arbitration.

Lawmakers could also order workers to go back to work and the two sides to return to the bargaining table. In such an event there will be a long “cooling off” period imposed in which a strike or lockout would be prohibited.

All of those courses of action carry risks which is why both sides would prefer to reach a negotiated settlement.

The risk is getting stuck with an “settlement” that contains one or more provisions you consider unpalatable.

For unions that could mean having imposed on them a contract that is less generous than the one some of them voted to reject.

As for what happens in early December if no negotiated agreement has been reached and Congress has not acted, that remains to be seen.

That deadline only means that by law union members are legally able to strike and railroads are legally able to lock out their employees.

It doesn’t necessarily mean there will be a work stoppage on that day even if that seems likely given the heated rhetoric being tossed about. The timing of when to strike or when to lock out your workers is critical and involves a calculation of when is the most advantageous time to actually go to war.

That might be sooner, it might be later. What might you be better positioned to gain now that you might be less likely to gain later and vice versa?

The unions and carriers have signaled that no work stoppage will occur if Congress is not in session. That suggests no one wants a work stoppage to last any longer than “necessary,” whatever that might ,mean.

In the past unions have sought to conduct limited strikes by targeting one carrier while still working at others.

The carriers have foiled this strategy by locking out workers in the belief that a strike again one railroad is strike against all of them. Likewise, if one union strikes, the remaining unions will honor picket lines.

In the past, railroad strikes and lockouts have been of short duration, usually a few days with the longest since World War having been four days.

The conventional wisdom is that the adverse effect of a railroad work stoppage is something the nation’s economy can’t tolerate.

That is still true and is, in fact, something the unions are counting on to force the carriers to give in on the sick days issue.

But there are other considerations that come into play, including political calculus.

The most recent mid-term elections have preserved the Democrats paper-thin margin of control of the Senate. The House will be in control of Republicans starting in January.

No one may want an economy-disrupting railroad work stoppage, but there are still gains to be had if one were to occur.

Republicans in Congress will see a work stoppage as an opportunity to inflict political damage on President Joseph Biden – at least for a time.

Democrats will see an opportunity to burnish their reputations or perceived reputations of being pro-labor — at least for a time.

It would take at least 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a potential filibuster of any proposed contract settlement. That could get dicey because it will put members of Congress into a position to have to vote on something they would rather avoid.

But at some point Congress faces the prospect of having to act lest the economy continue to suffer intolerable damage.

Another reality is that a strike would affect millions of Americans and they are not going to remain passive as they suffer economic harm and inconvenience.

The involvement of other audiences in the dispute is going to play a major role in dictating how the fight will be resolved.

Each side will be taking its best shot at influencing how those audiences view the dispute. In fact that process has been going on for several months now.

If a work stoppage occurs and if Congress does not immediately act to end it, the calculations change yet again.

Striking railroad workers will immediately see their health care insurance benefits cut off and although they will receive strike pay and, eventually, unemployment benefits, those would be just a portion of what they normally earn in wages. That will plunge some railroad workers into an economic purgatory and bring financial hardships to all of them.

Railroads will lose revenue and that will hurt them financially. Yet today’s Class 1 railroads are well positioned to weather a long work stoppage. They are not Penn Central, Erie Lackawanna, the Rock Island or the Milwaukee Road, all of which in the 1970s were strapped for cash and ended up in bankruptcy court.

Class 1 railroads today may be having customer service issues, experiencing work shortages, and losing market share to trucks, but they are not losing money. Today’s Class 1 railroads have never been financially stronger.

It is noteworthy that the margin of SMART-TD members rejecting the contract was barely over 50 percent. The percentage of BLET members voting in favor of the contract was just over 53 percent.

This is significant because it shows a split in thinking among unionized railroaders that could potentially come into play in the current dispute.

The unions are not as united as the front they are seeking to put up. Internal strife could become a factor in the dispute as those missed paychecks begin to take their toll on the household budgets of railroaders.

It also could hold longer-term implications. The railroads have not sought to hide their desire to reduce the number of conductors assigned to trains. The unions have managed to thwart those efforts for now, but the conductor issue is not going to go away.

Fissures within unions that break open during a strike and/or work stoppage could weaken unions longer term and that is something railroad management will look to exploit and union leadership fears.

For that matter the continuous relationship between railroad labor and management will continue to linger beyond whatever “settlement” is reached in the current round of contract talks because the working conditions issue that railroadrts talk a lot about these days isn’t going away either. But that is a discussion for another day.

In the meantime, railroads are likely to begin curtailing as soon as Nov. 28 shipments of certain commodities as the early December work stoppage date approaches if no new settlement is reached.

Trains magazine reported that a work stoppage would complicate the shipping of agricultural commodities due to record low water levels that have halted Mississippi River barge traffic.

There is only only so much that trucking companies can do to pick up the slack due to a shortage of trucks.

Still, shippers are likely to divert freight to highways in advance of the strike deadline. They took similar action in September when another strike/ockout deadline loomed.

However this current dispute is “resolved,” a lot of folks are going to come away displeased if not angry. Some of them are going to get a harsh lesson in the realities of labor-management relations. It will be but one chapter in an ongoing novel and a nice, tidy ending.

Union Had Demanded More Paid Sick Days

The negotiating team representing railroad management said on Thursday that a railroad labor union whose members rejected a tentative contract offer is seeking additional paid sick days.

The National Carriers Conference Committee told negotiators for the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters that the railroads would not agree to that demand.

On Thursday the NCCC, which represents railroad management, issued a statement saying the demands made by the union were similar to those considered and rejected by a presidential emergency board, which in August had issued recommendations for a new contract.

The PEB had been appointed after the talks for a new contract had reached an impasse.

The NCCC statement describes the wage and benefits recommended by the PEB and included in the tentative contract offer rejected by the maintenance workers as “the most generous wage package in almost 50 years of national rail negotiations.”

The NCCC statement went on to say that the union has taken the stance that railroaders are not allowed to take sick leave, which the NCCC said is a premise that is “easily disproven.”

“Rail employees can and do take time off for sickness and have comprehensive paid sickness benefits starting, in the case of BMWED-represented employees, after four days of absence and lasting up to 52 weeks,” the NCCC statement said.

The statement went on to say that past collective bargaining agreements reflected the agreement by union and management alike that “short-term absences would be unpaid in favor of higher compensation for days worked and more generous sickness benefits for longer absences.”

In ratification voting, 43 percent of the maintenance workers favored accepting the tentative agreement.

Members of six other railroad labor unions have voted to accept the contract while the ratification process continues at five other unions. The ratification process is not expected to be completed before Nov. 17.

The maintenance workers union leadership has suggested that its members might strike on or after Nov. 19.

Railway Age magazine reported that the maintenance workers union leadership has recommended that its members contact their members of Congress to express the need for more paid sick days.

“The push for paid sick time off could potentially lead to Congressional action,” the union said. “While we hope the carriers will acknowledge the concerns of their employees and negotiate with us, it is important that we are prepared for their unwillingness to address quality of life concerns.”

A report written by the magazine’s Washington correspondent Frank Wilner said the Nov. 19 date for a strike would fall during a time when many members of Congress will not be in Washington to vote on legislation to end a work stoppage.

Wilner said it may also be a transition time with control of Congress set to change in early January as a result of the early November elections.

“Many members who were defeated or are retiring will be negotiating new employment with lobbying and law firms—a Washington ‘revolving door’ tradition,” Wilner wrote. “There will be incentive for many to double-down on pro- or anti-labor images, or avoid choosing sides and not vote. In short, lame-duck sessions are the worst of times for such a rail work stoppage to occur.”

Trains magazine reported on its website that railroads and their unions are still completing the details of a clause in the tentative agreement requiring railroads to pay some job-related travel expenses.

That report quoted Union Pacific CEO Lance Fritz as saying that once union members have more details on how travel expenses will be handled that it is likely union members will approve the tentative contract.

Contract Voting to Last Through Mid-November

The ratification process of the tentative railroad labor contract is expected to drag on into mid-November.

Trains magazine reported Friday on its website that the two largest railroad labor unions, the SMART Transportation Division, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, have provided their members a timeline for how the ratification process will play out.

The timeline includes a question-and-answer period in which members are being invited to pose questions about the contract agreement.

As part of that Q&A process, the unions said they might need to return to the negotiating table with the National Carriers Conference Committee, which represents railroad management, to clarify the meaning of certain contract provisions and how they will be implemented in practice.

BLET and SMART-TD represent about half of the 125,000 union railroad workers affected by the recent contract talks. Those workers are represented by 12 unions.

Under the timelines released by BLET and SMART-TD, voting would begin in mid-October with results announced in mid-November.

That would effectively put off a potential work stoppage until after the mid-term elections.

The Trains report also indicated that negotiations continue between the NCCC and the International Association of Machinists District Lodge 19, whose members voted down a tentative contract earlier this month.

A memo sent to members from the union, which represents mechanics, said the talks are making progress.

Members of two railroad labor unions have voted to ratify tentative agreements while the ratification process is ongoing with other unions.

One reason for the Q&A sessions is because some rail workers say they want more concrete details about the changes in sick leave and assigned days off that were agreed to in the tentative pact announced early on the morning of Sept. 15, less than 24 hours before a potential national rail work stoppage.

The Hill, a website devoted to covering the federal government and politics, said some rail workers are wondering how strong the contract language is.

Earlier this week leaders of BLET and SMART-TD told their members that some of the language was still being written and reviewed by attorneys representing both sides of the talks.

Ron Kaminkow, an organizer at Railroad Workers United, told The Hill there’s “a lot of anger, confusion and hostility” toward the new agreement because workers believe what they have been told thus far has been intentionally vague.

In an interview with The Hill, Robert Bruno, a professor of labor and employment relations at the University of Illinois, predicted workers eventually will ratify the agreements but there will be a “sizeable number of ‘no’ votes.”

Bruno said it may be that union negotiating committees “misread what the rank and file would support.”

He said many of the “no” votes will be motivated by rail workers who feel they’ve been abused.

“Usually, there’s a way to kind of figure out money,” Bruno said. “It’s very often issues that go to respect and go to treatment, working autonomy, worker ability to have some control over their life. I think it reflects just how much power employers can have, even under a collective bargaining agreement.”

The Hill report also indicated that many rail workers dread the prospect of Congress imposing new contract terms on rail workers.

That might occur because elected officials fear a railroad work stoppage would disrupt the economy by keeping shipments of food, fuel and other key commodities from moving.

Quoting an unnamed Norfolk Southern locomotive engineer, The Hill report said workers believe that that gives them leverage in getting what they want from railroad management, particularly in terms of work rules.

Unions Tout Gains, Carriers Resume Accept New Shipments With Work Stoppage Averted

The tentative labor contract reached early Thursday morning that averted a railroad work stoppage was reached after both sides made concessions during intense bargaining that occurred after midnight as U.S. Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh intervened.

The concessions largely dealt with work rules and the 24 percent compounded wage increase over the five years of the contract that the parties agreed upon largely mirrors the recommendation of a presidential emergency board.

A statement issued by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, and the SMART Transportation Division, indicated that workers will receive “the largest wage increases in more than 45 years while holding the line on insurance costs and co-pays and addressing scheduling issues.”

The union statement said the latter includes providing for time off. “For the first time, our unions were able to obtain negotiated contract language exempting time off for certain medical events from carrier attendance policies,” the statement said.

Another hot button issue, crew size, was somewhat addressed in the tentative agreement, although the unions sought to frame that as a matter of taking “the crew consist issue off the table.”

Railroads want to restructure the jobs of conductors by making most of those positions ground-based jobs in which individual conductors would be responsible for multiple trains over a defined geographic area.

Unions have adamantly insisted that every road train have a conductor and engineer onboard.

The tentative agreement will now be submitted to BLET and SMART-TD members for ratification.

The Railway Age report noted that the contract “sweeteners” reached by BLET and SMART-TD also will be applied to other tentative agreements.

This would apply to contracts already ratified by two unions, the Transportation Communications Union/IAM, and the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen, and rejected by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 19.

Presumably the latter will submit the amended agreement to another ratification vote by its members.

Six unions that had reached tentative agreements with the NCCC were still in the ratification process and the “sweeteners” will apply to there contracts.

Yet another union, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen, was still at the bargaining table along the BLET and SMART-TD

One report indicated that the signal workers union’s negotiating team had agreed to a tentative pact with NCCC, but the union’s leadership refused to endorse it or submit it to members for ratification.

Ratification by any of the unions of the latest tentative agreement is not a sure thing, thus the threat of a strike and/or lockout could re-emerge several weeks from now.

In a statement, the Association of American Railroads said upon ratification of the contract union members will be paid, on average, $11,000 per worker in back pay because the contract terms are backdated to 2020.

The tentative contract, if ratified, will extend through 2024. Under federal labor law, railroad contracts never expire, but can be amended.

The BLET and SMART-TD statement said the tentative agreements provides for voluntary assigned days off for road train crews and an additional paid day off.

“Most importantly, for the first time ever, the agreement provides our members with the ability to take time away from work to attend routine and preventative medical [appointments], as well as exemptions from attendance policies for hospitalizations and surgical procedures,” the statement said.

The unions claimed they were able to block the desire of railroad management “to fast-track arbitration on crew consist agreements.”

This will mean two-person crews will continue for the indefinite future, the unions said.

However, the unions conceded on the demands that railroad drop attendance polices that unions had described as “draconian.”

Nor were the unions able to achieve their goal of creating predictable work schedules.

These two issues will instead be subject to “local handling.”

Aside from the involvement of Labor Secretary Walsh, President Joseph Biden also made calls to both side to apply pressure to reach an agreement.

Also participating during the overnight bargaining were Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, National Economic Council Director Brian Deese, and National Mediation Board member Linda Puchala.

The last railroad work stoppage occurred in the early 1990s.

In the wake of the announcement of a tentative agreement, railroads began cancelling freight embargoes and again accepting intermodal, security-sensitive, and hazardous cargo shipments.

Norfolk Southern sent a notice to shippers that it has reopened all gates effective immediately.

To read more about the tentative agreement visit https://www.railwayage.com/freight/class-i/no-work-stoppage-for-now/

and https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/freight-railroad-strike-averted-thanks-to-tentative-contract-agreements/

Tentative Deal Will Head Off Rail Strike

A national railroad strike has been averted for now after railroad labor unions and management reached a nearly 11^th hour tentative agreement on a new contract.

The tentative agreement was announced by President Joseph Biden early Thursday morning.

Details about the agreement are not yet available but a statement issued by the Association of American Railroads indicated that the pact adopted the recommendation of a presidential emergency board of a 24 percent compounded wage increase over the five-year length of the contract.

This includes an average of $11,000 in back pay per worker upon ratification of the agreement, AAR said.

The tentative agreement runs from 2020 through 2024.

The AAR statement said nothing about work rules, particularly time off. A report on the website Politico quoted House Transportation Chair Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) as saying unions were seeking an additional five unpaid sick days.

The Biden administration had been working throughout the week to head off a potential strike and/or lockout that could have occurred as early as Friday morning.

In announcing the agreement, Biden said it, “will keep our critical rail system working and avoid disruption of our economy.”

The tentative contract would still need to be ratified by the unions involved and it is not clear if the rank and file will do so.

On Wednesday members of the Transportation Communications Union/IAM, and the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen said their members had approved tentative agreements reached earlier with the National Carriers Conference Committee, which represents railroad management.

However, on that same day the The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 19 said its members rejected a tentative agreement with NCCC.

Through Wednesday, nine labor unions had reached tentative agreements with NCCC and statements issued by both sides indicated that those agreements generally adopted the recommendations of the presidential emergency board that Biden had appointed earlier this summer to investigate the contract dispute.

Contract negotiations have been dragging on for more than two years with the two sides stalemated over wages, benefits and work rules.

In recent days, the president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, Dennis Pierce, had said that work rules and not wages were the primary sticking point preventing an agreement.

The unions have for months been bitterly complaining about what they termed “draconian” attendance policies imposed by Class 1 carriers, particularly BNSF and Union Pacific.

In announcing the tentative agreement, Biden said, “these rail workers will get better pay, improved working conditions, and peace of mind around their health care costs: all hard-earned.”

He added that the agreement “is also a victory for railway companies who will be able to retain and recruit more workers for an industry that will continue to be part of the backbone of the American economy for decades to come.”

Rail PEB Seems to Split Differences in Report

The presidential emergency board appointed to recommend a settlement of the contract talks between Class 1 railroads and their unions has decided to split the differences.

Various news reports, including those by Trains magazine and the Reuters news agency, said the PEB is recommending that the railroads drop their demand that conductors be removed from locomotive cabs but also recommended pay increases that are well below what the unions were seeking.

If both sides agree to adopt the PEB recommendations, workers would receive a 22 percent pay hike over the life of the contract as well as $1,000 in service recognition bonus payments per year over the five years of the contract. The two sides could also agree to use the PEB findings as a basis for a new contract agreement.

The unions, which represent 115,000 railroad workers, had reportedly sought a 28 percent pay increase while the carriers offered 16 percent.

The PEB’s recommended pay increase works out to between 4 percent and 7 percent a year through 2024. Workers would receive back pay increases of 3 percent for 2020 and 3.5 percent for 2021.

Workers should receive an additional paid day off each year, the PEB recommended.

As for health care benefits, the PEB recommended what it termed modest changes that would include no reductions in benefits or a shift in cost-sharing, aside from a previously agreed upon 15 percent employee contribution per month.

The recommendations called for railroads and their unions to continue negotiating over the scheduling of work shifts for train and engine workers and if no agreement can be reached submitting the issue to binding arbitration.

Along those lines, the PEB recommended that the matter of making conductors ground-based positions be negotiated at the local rather than national level.

By federal law, work stoppages are prohibited for the next 30 days. If one or both of the parties in the contract impasse rejects the PEB findings, they will be free to either strike, in the case of the unions, or lock out workers in the case of railroad management.

If one or both of those occur, Congress could step in and impose a settlement.

Contract talks began in early 2020. By law, railroad contracts never expire but can be amended from time to time.

Historically, contract talks often take years to resolve. The last national railroad strike occurred in 1992.

The three-member PEB was appointed by President Joseph Biden in July and given a month to investigate the contract situation and issue recommendations for a settlement.

An article about the PEB recommendations can be found at the website of Trains magazine at https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/presidential-emergency-board-issues-rail-contract-recommendations-meant-to-avert-strike/

The article includes a link to download the PEB report.

Unions, Railroad Far Apart in Contract Proposals

As a presidential emergency begins to investigate the contract dispute between major U.S. railroads and their labor unions, it is finding the two sides are far apart  on wages and medical benefits.

The PEB began hearings on Sunday and the proposals they received from the two sides show a wide gulf between what unions want in wages and benefits and what the railroads are proposing to pay.

As reported by Trains magazine on its website, the unions want a 31.2 percent wage increase compounded over five years retroactive to Jan. 1, 2020.

The railroads have countered with a 17 percent compounded increase over the same term.

The Trains report cited a fact sheet released by Union Rail Unions, which represents the unions.

On a per year basis, the management offer calls for wage increases of 2 percent or 3 percent, except for a 6 percent increase in 2022.

The unions are seeking wage hikes of 6 percent in 2020 and 2021, 8 percent in 2022, and 4 percent in each of the final two years.

As for medical benefits, the unions want to maintain the status quo on the monthly worker contribution to healthcare, which is now $228.89.

Railroad management wants to increase the worker contribution to $321 while increasing the deductibles, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket maximums for individuals and families.

The PEB is expected to release its recommendations on or before Aug. 15.

The two sides can accept or reject those recommendations. If the latter occurs, neither side can engage in a strike or lockout for another 30 days.

Retailers Urge Creation of PEB in Labor Talks

The National Retail Federation has joined the list of trade groups urging President Joseph Biden to appoint a Presidential Emergency Board to make recommendations for ending a contract stalemate between railroad labor and management.

In a letter to Biden dated July 6, the NRF expressed concern that a potential rail strike would adversely affect the nation’s economy by disrupting the supply chain.

Railroad labor unions and management have been negotiating for more than two years for a new contact.

The National Mediation Board oversaw the talks earlier this year, but recently declared the talks to be at impasse and released the parties from further negotiations under Board auspices

Court Rejects Local Bargaining by Union

An effort by a railroad labor union to engage in local negotiations over wages and benefits was rejected by a federal court.

The court ruled that the Railway Labor Act does not allow the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to seek local negotiations with some railroads.

National contract negotiations between railroad labor unions and major railroads have been underway since 2020. It is common for those negotiations to last for several years before reaching agreement on a new contract.

So long as negotiations continue the unions cannot strike. Currently, the parties are involved in mediation in an effort to hammer out a new agreement.