Burkin v. Burlington Northern Railroad

Missouri Court of Appeals

Burkin v. Burlington Northern Railroad

690 S.W.2d 508

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 7, 1985

DocketNo. 49263

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 690 S.W.2d 508 (Burkin v. Burlington Northern Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burkin v. Burlington Northern Railroad, 690 S.W.2d 508 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his petition on the ground the Railway Labor Act (RLA) preempted the subject matter of his action. We affirm.

The petition named as defendants the railroad, Trainmaster Cherner and Terminal Superintendent Tolbert. It is alleged defendants conspired against plaintiff following an on-the-job injury suffered by plaintiff and acted in concert to discharge him, following an investigation, for rule violations in connection with the injury. The objects of the conspiracy were to cover up railroad’s negligence, deter plaintiff and others from seeking redress for injuries, and cause emotional distress. The petition, read broadly, attempts to state a claim for intentional tort, emotional distress and/or wrongful discharge.

The action was properly dismissed. Artful pleading does not change the fact this petition concerns a “minor dispute” cognizable under the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (1982). Magnuson v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 576 F.2d 1367, 1369-70 (9th Cir.1978); Carson v. Southern Ry. Co., 494 F.Supp. 1104, 1111-12 (D.S.C.1979). As the action concerns a “minor dispute” under the RLA, plaintiff’s remedy is to employ the procedure provided by the act, which preempts state law. Alsbury v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 670 S.W.2d 87, 88 (Mo.App.1984); Barchers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 669 S.W.2d 235, 237-38[1] (Mo.App.1984). Additionally, there is no cause of action in tort for wrongful discharge of an employee at will. Dake v. Tuell, 687 S.W.2d 191, 192-193 (Mo.banc 1985).

Judgment affirmed.

DOWD, P.J., and CRANDALL, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CRIST, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his petition on the ground the Railway Labor Act (RLA) preempted the subject matter of his action. We affirm.

The petition named as defendants the railroad, Trainmaster Cherner and Terminal Superintendent Tolbert. It is alleged defendants conspired against plaintiff following an on-the-job injury suffered by plaintiff and acted in concert to discharge him, following an investigation, for rule violations in connection with the injury. The objects of the conspiracy were to cover up railroad’s negligence, deter plaintiff and others from seeking redress for injuries, and cause emotional distress. The petition, read broadly, attempts to state a claim for intentional tort, emotional distress and/or wrongful discharge.

The action was properly dismissed. Artful pleading does not change the fact this petition concerns a “minor dispute” cognizable under the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (1982). Magnuson v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 576 F.2d 1367, 1369-70 (9th Cir.1978); Carson v. Southern Ry. Co., 494 F.Supp. 1104, 1111-12 (D.S.C.1979). As the action concerns a “minor dispute” under the RLA, plaintiff’s remedy is to employ the procedure provided by the act, which preempts state law. Alsbury v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 670 S.W.2d 87, 88 (Mo.App.1984); Barchers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 669 S.W.2d 235, 237-38[1] (Mo.App.1984). Additionally, there is no cause of action in tort for wrongful discharge of an employee at will. Dake v. Tuell, 687 S.W.2d 191, 192-193 (Mo.banc 1985).

Judgment affirmed.

DOWD, P.J., and CRANDALL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

690 S.W.2d 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burkin-v-burlington-northern-railroad-moctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack