The disposition of the issues before the Court requires an understanding of the Railway Labor Act and its procedures for resolution of disputes. In In re Int'l Ass'n of Machinists v. National Mediation Board, 425 F.2d 527, 533-34 (D.C. Cir. 1970), the case on which Local 851 primarily relies, the following description was given: "The major purpose of Congress in passing the Railway Labor Act was to `provide the machinery to prevent strikes' and the resulting interruptions of interstate commerce.
In a situation such as the one before us, a court has jurisdiction to provide a remedy only "if the Board continues mediation on a basis that is completely and patently arbitrary and for a period of time that is completely and patently unreasonable, notwithstanding the lack of any genuine hope or expectation that the parties will arrive at an agreement." International Ass'n of Machinists Aerospace Workers v. NMB, 425 F.2d 527, 537 (D.C. Cir. 1970) ( "Machinists") (Leventhal, J.). This rule has come to mean that court relief from continuation of mediation "will be available, if at all, only in a most extraordinary situation bordering on patent official bad faith."
Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, 378, 89 S.Ct. 1109, 1115, 22 L.Ed.2d 344 (1969); see 45 U.S.C. § 152 Second, Seventh, 155 First, 156, 157, 160. Once this process is exhausted — i.e. the Board has terminated mediation, the parties have rejected arbitration, and presidential review is complete — the parties may resort to unrestricted economic warfare. See International Ass'n of Machinists Aerospace Workers v. National Mediation Bd., 425 F.2d 527, 533 (D.C. Cir. 1970) ( "Machinists"). II.
"The major purpose of Congress in passing the Railway Labor Act was to provide the machinery to prevent strikes and the resulting interruptions of interstate commerce." International Ass'n of Machinists Aerospace Workers v. NMB, 425 F.2d 527, 533 (D.C. Cir. 1970) ( "IAM"). Toward that end, "[t]he Act provides a detailed framework to facilitate the voluntary settlement of major disputes," Trainmen, 394 U.S. at 378, 89 S.Ct. at 1115 (emphasis added), relying heavily upon "the traditional instruments of mediation, conciliation, and arbitration," General Comm. of Adjustment v. Missouri-Kan.-Tex. R.R., 320 U.S. 323, 332, 64 S.Ct. 146, 150, 88 L.Ed. 76 (1943), and during whose pendency the union may not strike and no party may alter the status quo, 45 U.S.C. §§ 152, Seventh, 155, First, 156.
Id. at 11. A court's authority to review the NMB's decision to keep a dispute in mediation is limited to those extraordinary and exceptional situations in which the NMB's actions constitute patent official bad faith.Local 808, Bldg., Maint., Serv. and R.R. Workers v.Nat'l Mediation Bd., 888 F.2d 1428, 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ( "Local 808") (citing Int'l Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 425 F.2d 527, 537, 543 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (" IAM 1")). The judicial power of review over NMB decisions is so limited that the few district courts that have ordered the NMB to terminate mediation and proffer arbitration have been overturned on appeal. See, e.g., Local 808, Bldg., Maint., Serv. and R.R. Workers v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 888 F.2d 1428, (D.C. Cir. 1989) and Int'l Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 425 F.2d 527 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (" IAM 1").
That limited review of final NMB actions promotes the strong RLA policy of expeditiously and dispositively resolving representation disputes. International Association of Machinists Aerospace Workers v. NMB, 425 F.2d 527, 535-36 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (" IAM"). The doctrine rests also upon the judiciary's confidence that the NMB can, especially in light of its experience and expertise, reasonably vindicate employees' RLA rights without court involvement.
His function is clearly "more the function of a referee," and any "command" to effectuate the protective arrangements he certified is that of the statute, not of the Secretary. The Court of Appeals recently discussed the rationale for giving finality to National Mediation Board determinations under the Railway Labor Act — a rationale fully applicable to the role of the Secretary of Labor here. International Association of Machinists v. National Mediation Board, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 96, 425 F.2d 527 (1970). The Court noted that in Switchmen's Union the Supreme Court "found that the intent was plain to make that agency certification finding `the last terminal point.' `There was to be no dragging out of the controversy into other tribunals of law.'"
General Engineering, Inc. v. NLRB, 341 F.2d 367, 375 (9th Cir. 1965). This court has applied such a doctrine to district court testimony in a factual context similar to that before us. See International Ass'n of Machinists Aerospace Workers v. National Mediation Board, 425 F.2d 527, 538-41 (D.C. Cir. 1970). There is room for the doctrine in administrative proceedings as well; indeed, the public interest may more often require it there than elsewhere. It has been applied in other circuits, specifically to the proceedings of the Board.
358 U.S. at 188, 79 S.Ct. at 184, 3 L.Ed.2d at 214. Similarly, in International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. National Mediation Board, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 96, 425 F.2d 527 (1970), we allowed a limited review of a decision of the National Mediation Board not to discontinue mediation and proffer arbitration under the Railway Labor Act, notwithstanding a clear legislative intent to preclude judicial review of Mediation Board actions, stating that: An exception to the rule of immunity has been carved out and jurisdiction of the courts established, where the papers establish on their face a plain violation by the Board of a statutory command which warrants immediate intervention by an equity court.
Courts have recognized this vital role for the NMB by refusing to review the Board's decision to keep a dispute in mediation "[a]bsent a showing of patent official bad faith." Local 808, 888 F.2d at 1434 (reversing district court's order directing NMB to terminate mediation and proffer arbitration); see International Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 180 F. Supp. 2d 188, 191 (D.D.C. 2002) ("[B]ecause the NMB's power to prolong negotiations can be used to exert pressure on the parties to settle, a court should exercise the `utmost restraint before . . . terminat[ing] a process that has not been terminated by a public agency.'") (quoting International Ass'n of Machinists Aerospace Workers v. National Mediation Bd., 425 F.2d 527, 537 (D.C. Cir. 1970));see also International Ass'n of Machinists Aerospace Workers v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 374 F. Supp. 2d 135, 140-41 (D.D.C. 2005) (denying preliminary injunction which had sought to compel NMB to terminate mediation and proffer arbitration; that mediation had lasted for four years did not demonstrate that NMB was patently unreasonable, because the "NMB's power to hold the parties in mediation is an important tool to bringing the parties to conciliation"); Seaboard World Airways, Inc. v. Local 851, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 501 F. Supp. 47 (E.D.N.Y. 1980) (following Machinists, 425 F.2d 527, and denying union's request for an order directing the NMB to declare an impasse and either proffer arbitration or release the parties from mediation). Indeed, "[t]he judicial power of review over NMB decisions is so limited that the few district courts that have ordered the NMB to terminate mediation and proffer arbitration have been overturned on appeal."