Alaska Employment Law

An Alaska Railroad employee signed a Last Chance Agreement that provided that neither he nor his union (the UTU) “may process a grievance . . . in any forum regarding [a] termination.”  The Railroad fired him.  He grieved, and lost before an internal Hearing Officer.  On appeal to the Superior Court, the employee argued, inter alia, that the Hearing Officer was biased and had denied him various procedural rights (continuance, discovery, etc.).  The Railroad argued that he waived those objections when he signed the Last Chance Agreement.

Anchorage Superior Court Judge Eric Aarseth issued an Order on July 10th, in which he held:

1.   The Railroad’s reading of the LCA would eliminate all Due Process rights.  “A more rational interpretation,” Aarseth said, would be that the employee “may not file any type of appeal regarding the termination itself, but he is still free to appeal any lack of due process in his hearing.  As a matter of public policy, this interpretation still discourages litigation by the terminated employee, but it also ensures that the ARRC keeps its part of the bargain by providing a fair hearing.”

2.  The ARC violated the employee’s Due Process rights by not granting the employee a continuance that would have permitted him to obtain additional evidence from the Railroad, and to call additional witnesses. 

3.  The employee waived his right to argue retaliatory discharge and Hearing Officer bias by failing to raise those objections before the Hearing Officer.  

4.  The proper remedy is a new hearing before the Hearing Officer, not a trial de novo in Superior Court.

Beasley v. Alaska Railroad Corporation, Case No. 3AN-06-13141 CI.  (Alaska Super. Ct., Third Jud. Dist., Order of July 10, 2008)

Linda Johnson of Clapp Peterson represented the employee.

Ann Courtney, from the Alaska Railroad’s General Counsel office, represented the Railroad.