This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Michele Haydel Gehrke

By Winston Cho | Jul. 18, 2018

Jul. 18, 2018

Michele Haydel Gehrke

See more on Michele Haydel Gehrke

Polsinelli LLP

Michele Haydel Gehrke

As an expert on the Railway Labor Act, Gehrke, for the most part, only takes on airlines as clients.

Gehrke handles a range of matters for airlines from minor disputes concerning arbitration processes in negotiating a collective bargaining agreement to major disputes with contract issues.

Practicing for more than 17 years, the bulk of Gehrke’s work lies in navigating the nuances of the Railway Labor Act, which not too many attorneys are familiar with, according to Polsinelli’s traditional labor relations practice chair.

“One of the interesting nuances of the RLA is that you don’t have the equivalent of the National Labor Relations Board,” she said. “There is a national mediation board which handles representation disputes, but no adjudicative bodies that handle practices.”

In a closely watched matter concerning one of the first social media cases being litigated in federal court under the act, Gehrke is lead counsel for Southwest Airlines Co. The plaintiff, a former flight attendant, alleged the airline and her union unjustly terminated her for sending graphic anti-abortion Facebook videos to her union president.

“As we move into the social media era, it would be helpful for airlines and railroads to have some guidance on what they can do on social media accounts,” she said. “No equivalent of National Labor Relations Board to issue memos as to how it should interpret the statutes.”

Because there is no forum to bring her grievances under the act, the plaintiff brought her claim as a grievance, which went to arbitration, and then took a “second bite at the apple” by filing a federal court case.

Although there were no contract terms prohibiting employees from filing a complaint in federal court, Gehrke said it was “inappropriate” because she had the chance to argue her case in arbitration, which upheld her termination.

Gehrke and her team will be seeking complete dismissal of the case. Carter v. Transport Workers Union of America Local 556, 17CV02278 (E.D. Tex., filed Aug. 25, 2017).

— Winston Cho

#348326

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com