Originally Posted by airbus300

Ford and Harrison already have experience with delaying scope clauses for many years...


ALPA filed a grievance shortly after the merger contending that DHL was bound by the 1998 scope clause and all of the flying being performed by ABX Air now belonged to the ALPA-represented ASTAR pilots. ALPA subsequently filed a lawsuit (counterclaim) in federal court in New York seeking to enjoin DHL from continuing to utilize ABX Air to carry its freight pending arbitration of this scope grievance.
ABX Air intervened in the New York lawsuit and persuaded the court to stay the case pending the outcome of an unfair labor practice charge that ABX Air filed against ALPA in which it contended that ALPA’s scope clause was an illegal “hot cargo” provision in violation of Section 8(e) of the NLRA and that its grievance and lawsuit constituted unlawful coercion against a neutral employer (DHL) to force it to cease doing business with another person (ABX) in violation of Sections 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of the NLRA.
The ALJ agreed with ABX and the NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s decision, rejecting ALPA’s argument that the Board lacked jurisdiction because of what it claimed was essentially a Railway Labor Act dispute. The Board held that while the employees involved in the dispute, ABX and ASTAR pilots, are covered by the RLA, only one of the two employers involved, ABX, is subject to the RLA. DHL, the “neutral” entity against whom the allegedly illegal conduct was directed, is covered by the NLRA. Thus, since ALPA, a NLRA-covered labor organization, chose to enmesh DHL, a NLRA-covered employer, in its dispute with ABX, an RLA employer, the Board had jurisdiction to determine whether ALPA violated the NLRA’s secondary boycott provisions.
The Board adopted the ALJ’s determination that ALPA’s pursuit of its grievance and counterclaim constituted unlawful secondary boycott. The Board determined that the object of ALPA’s conduct was to require DHL and Airborne to cease doing business with ABX in violation of NLRA. The court also held that this conduct was aimed at acquiring work for ALPA’s members, not preserving their work. Thus, it was an unlawful secondary boycott.