Burlington Northern Railroad v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes

Background

A dispute began when Guilford Transportation acquired the Maine Central Railroad and planned to eliminate many jobs, prompting the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes (a national railroad union) to strike after bargaining failed. The union lawfully extended picketing to Guilford’s other lines and to facilities of other carriers it believed affected Guilford’s traffic, including strategic locations like Chicago and Los Angeles. Multiple railroads sought court orders; some district courts enjoined picketing of neutral carriers and several cases were consolidated for a preliminary injunction.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether federal courts may issue injunctions against secondary picketing in a railway labor dispute. It held that the Norris-LaGuardia Act broadly bars federal injunctions “involving or growing out of a labor dispute” and rejected narrower tests that would let judges limit protected activity by finding a secondary employer “substantially aligned” with the primary employer. The Court also found that the Railway Labor Act does not implicitly forbid secondary picketing here, and that only narrow, specific RLA mandates (not present in this case) could justify a federal injunction. The appellate court’s judgment in favor of the union was therefore affirmed.

Real world impact

After this decision, federal courts generally cannot enjoin peaceful secondary picketing in railroad disputes; unions retain the ability to pressure neutral carriers during self-help periods. The Executive Branch and Congress retain separate tools — such as Presidential Emergency Boards and legislation — to impose cooling-off periods or bind parties. If Congress sees abuses, it must act to change the rule; the Court left that choice to lawmakers.