This reduction in requests for overtime is causing harm to Delta and the traveling public.   Delta has lost millions of dollars in revenues, rerouting expenses, extra operating costs, and overnight hotel and meal vouchers.   Additionally, Delta has suffered loss in the form of good will and traffic that is immeasurable.   The public has suffered loss in time and money from the delays and cancellations which is also immeasurable.

In spite of these findings, the court refused to issue an injunction against ALPA and/or MEC. It based this refusal on the fact that “[n]either the Union leadership [of ALPA] nor the [MEC] supports this effort [by the pilots] and both have, in fact, counseled against it.”   While it is true that ALPA and the MEC “counseled against” the efforts of the pilots, it is equally clear that these union communiques were not effective in suppressing the pilots' no-overtime campaign.

The district court's error came in its decision that it would “not hold that a union has an affirmative duty to end or prevent the unilateral unlawful activity of its members.”   The RLA imposes such a duty on the union in section 152 First, and the district court should have enforced that duty.   It is possible, of course, that ALPA has in fact done all that it can do in directing the pilots to cease their no-overtime campaign.   We seriously doubt this is the case, however.   What seems to be true is that while ALPA has admonished its members at Delta's request, it has not made “every reasonable effort” as required by statute.  45 U.S.C. § 152 First.   ALPA is statutorily bound to do everything possible to “maintain” the CBA so that commerce is not in any way interrupted.   We are not satisfied that ALPA has fulfilled this duty.21  Therefore, the district court, on remand, should enjoin ALPA to take specific steps aimed at stopping the pilots' no-overtime campaign and resuming normal operations of Delta's operations, including its overtime scheduling.22

It is possible, although unlikely, that ALPA has lost control of its members and that the pilots are truly acting contrary to ALPA's wishes and directives.   If this proves to be the case (which would become evident if the district court's injunction against ALPA is ineffective at stopping the no-overtime campaign), then National Airlines, 416 F.2d 998, would apply.   In National Airlines, the union had lost control of its members (and conceded as much to the court) and the members were conducting “wildcat strikes”;  the union was admittedly powerless to prevent this.   In this circumstance, the airline came to the court seeking permission to terminate some of the employees if they failed to work under the terms of their CBA. (The airline approached the court because the RLA would not have permitted the airline's self-help without judicial intervention.)   In National Airlines, the former Fifth Circuit allowed the airline, faced with employees who were violating the CBA and a union that had lost control of its members, to take direct action against the employees.

If ALPA cannot control the pilots, some of whom are admittedly violating the CBA by advocating concerted action, then Delta may return to the district court for additional relief.   The district court would, at that point, join all appropriate parties as defendants (presumably sua sponte ) and enjoin them from engaging in continued activity in violation of the CBA, under penalty of court sanction or other adverse employment action.