Southwest Airlines Faces Lawsuit Over Pilots Union Intimidation

By Jonathan Stempel

(Reuters) – Southwest Airlines must face a lawsuit accusing the carrier of illegally intimidating and disciplining pilots participating in its over 9,000-member pilots union, a federal appeals court ruled on Monday.

In a 3-0 decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association sufficiently established that the Dallas-based carrier had "anti-union animus," allowing the dispute to proceed in federal court.

A lower court judge previously ruled that the dispute was minor and thus belonged in arbitration.

The case originated from Southwest's decision to strip Timothy Roebling of his responsibilities and pay as a "check pilot," a special group of roughly 300 pilots who collaborate closely with management and train other pilots.

Southwest claimed Roebling's use of a vulgarity justified the discipline, but the union argued it was a consequence of his joining the union's check pilot committee.

Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote for the New Orleans-based appeals court panel, agreeing with the lower court judge that the dispute was a minor matter under the federal Railway Labor Act. However, she noted claims that Southwest intimidated check pilots from associating with the union and that Roebling's supervisor threatened to revoke his qualifications made this case unique.

These allegations "sufficiently support the union's claim that Southwest intended to 'weaken' or 'destroy' the operational capacity of the union," she explained.

Southwest issued a statement disagreeing with the court's decision and vehemently denying the union’s allegations, adding, "We are evaluating our options."

Lawyers for the union did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The appeals court has sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn in Dallas federal court, who had dismissed it in September 2023.

The case is titled Southwest Airlines Pilots Association v Southwest Airlines Co, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-11065.