Flight Options, LLC, et al. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al.

In Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Railway Labor Executives Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299 (1989) (“Conrail”), this Court held that disputes over the interpretation of collective bargaining agreements governed by the Railway Labor Act must be arbitrated so long as the interpretation of the contract by the party seeking arbitration is “arguably justified” and not “frivolous” or “obviously insubstantial.” Id. at 306-07. This Court further held that this is a “relatively light” burden that may be based on both implied and express terms of the contract. Id. at 311-12. The question presented here is: Whether the Sixth Circuit’s decision below conflicts with this Court’s Conrail decision and the broader body of Railway Labor Act precedent given that the Sixth Circuit classified a labor dispute arising from differing interpretations of ambiguous contract terms as a “major dispute” and enjoined the Petitioners to either accept the Union’s interpretation or arbitrate the dispute.