Of course, a union is allowed to educate its members about their contractual rights and safety obligations, and in that context, it may not be a problem to call for strict compliance with the contract. A union may not, however, encourage strict compliance with the terms of an existing agreement in an effort to gain leverage in negotiations for a new or amended contract. When a union changes the status quo in aid of such an effort, the district court may enjoin the union's conduct. That is just what happened here with respect to blocking out, short-notice sick calls, and overtime.

Atlas Air, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, No. 17-7172, 14 (D.C. Cir. Jul. 5, 2019)

Since voluntary conduct can be part of the "status quo," the pertinent question in this case is what the pilots normally did before the Union informed Atlas of its intent to negotiate an amended CBA. See, e.g., Delta Air Lines, 238 F.3d at 1309-10 (encouraging pilots to decline optional overtime assignments violated the status quo). In other words, the question is what pilots normally did before the Union assertedly began trying to change the status quo. Atlas's statistical evidence shows that, prior to February 2016, pilots frequently departed before the scheduled time and only rarely departed precisely on time, and after February 2016, the inverse was true.

Second, the Union argues that blocking out on time is not illegal, but instead ensures that pilots are "in compliance with [Federal Aviation Administration] rest, flight and duty time regulation." Union Br. 51. That may be so, but the issue is not whether pilots should block out on time; it is whether pilots altered their prior practice of blocking out before the scheduled time, when possible. And the answer to that question, the district court fairly concluded, was yes.



Atlas Air, Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, No. 17-7172, 17 (D.C. Cir. Jul. 5, 2019)