JOAN V. HARRIS v. PAUL HIRSH,
83 N.Y.2d 734, 636 N.E.2d 1375, 613 N.Y.S.2d 842 (1994).
June 9, 1994
1 No. 94 (1994 NY Int. 094)
Decided June 9, 1994
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
TITONE, J.:
On this appeal, we are called upon to determine whether the trial
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's common law
defamation action because it constituted a "minor dispute" within the
exclusive purview of the mandatory grievance- to-adjustment board
procedures established by the federal Railway Labor Act (RLA) (45 USC
§ 151 et seq). For the reasons that follow, we conclude that
plaintiff's state law claim is preempted, and her exclusive remedy
lies with the arbitration procedures established under the RLA.
Plaintiff Joan Harris was employed by Metro-North Commuter Railroad
(Metro-North) as a crew dispatcher and was a member of the Brotherhood
of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks (BRAC) collective bargaining
unit. The terms of plaintiff's employment were governed by a
collective bargaining agreement (CBA) entered into between Metro-North
and BRAC. On July 16, 1986, defendant Hirsh, plaintiff's former
supervisor, called plaintiff into his office to discuss her work
performance. Plaintiff alleges that during that encounter, and in the
presence of plaintiff's two immediate supervisors who were invited to
attend the meeting, defendant Hirsh asked plaintiff whether she had a
problem, and then stated to her: "You take drugs. I've worked in the
Towers, and I know a person who is on drugs and you look like one.
I've been thinking about sending you for a drug test." During the
meeting, defendant Hirsh also indicated that he was suspicious that
plaintiff used drugs because on a prior occasion he had observed her
give an "incoherent" answer to a co-worker who had posed a question.
Defendant's remarks were eventually circulated among plaintiff's
co-workers.
By letter dated August 7, 1986, plaintiff requested that the BRAC
district chair institute an investigation and grant her an "unjust
treatment" hearing pursuant to Rule 52 of the CBA (n 1) to
determine whether defendant's conduct during the July 16 meeting
SNIPPETS:
we are called upon to determine whether the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
For the reasons that follow, we conclude that plaintiff's state law claim is preempted, and
Plaintiff Joan Harris was employed by Metro-North Commuter Railroad as a crew dispatcher and
On July 16, 1986, defendant Hirsh, plaintiff's former supervisor, called plaintiff into his
Plaintiff alleges that during that encounter, and in the presence of plaintiff's two
By letter dated August 7, 1986, plaintiff requested that the BRAC district chair institute an
Defendant Hirsh asserted as affirmative defenses that the court lacked subject matter
Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, finding specifically that
The court concluded that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction by virtue of
In so holding, the court determined that the allegations raised in plaintiff's state law
The Act establishes a comprehensive scheme for the orderly and prompt resolution of disputes
To achieve the congressional goal of "keeping labor disputes simple and out of the reach of
"Minor disputes," statutorily defined as "all disputes between an employee * * * and a
the fact that a claim is not expressly governed by precise terms of a collective bargaining
Minor disputes will include not only claims concerning "the meaning or proper application of
A commonly followed restatement of the governing inquiry is that the RLA grievance provisions
The purpose of defining "minor disputes" broadly is clear: "f the pleading of emotional
|
