Today, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers And Trainmen General Committee of Adjustment, Central Region (pdf), which involved the ability to challenge a final decision by the National Railroad Adjustment Board (NRAB) under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The Court declined to answer whether a final decision by the NRAB could be set aside for an alleged due process violation, instead affirming the Seventh Circuit’s granting of relief to the union challenging the NRAB’s dismissal of its arbitration petition on statutory grounds.

Background

The plaintiffs in this case were employees of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPR) who, through their union, filed grievances contesting their termination. The RLA requires that minor disputes involving employees in industries covered by the Act be resolved by binding arbitration before the NRAB after the aggrieved parties have exhausted their grievance remedies provided by their collective bargaining agreement. Before submitting a claim to arbitration, the parities must attempt settlement in a conference involving the employer and representatives of the employee. In this case, after these “on-property” proceedings, the union submitted the employees’ claims to arbitration with the NRAB. The NRAB ultimately dismissed the employees’ grievances on the grounds that the union failed to provide written evidence that a required settlement conference had occurred. In essence, the NRAB found that because evidence of the prerequisite was not met, it lacked jurisdiction to review the matter. On appeal, the district court upheld the NRAB’s dismissal, but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the dismissal was a denial of the union’s due process rights by requiring evidence of the conference, and that the NRAB had unfairly created a new obligation by requiring such evidence, as this prerequisite was not clearly established in any statute or collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court held that while the Seventh Circuit erred in finding in favor of the union on constitutional rather than statutory grounds, it affirmed the decision to set aside the NRAB’s dismissal orders.

Reasoning

Section 153 of the RLA allows a party aggrieved by an NRAB decision to petition for judicial review if, among other reasons, the NRAB failed “to conform, or confine itself, to matters within the scope of the [NRAB’s] jurisdiction.” In finding in the union’s favor, the Court considered the above statutory issue without resorting to a discussion of the alleged due process question. By finding that the NRAB did not adhere to its statutorily provided jurisdictional obligation, the Court did not need to address whether a court may set aside an NRAB ruling for due process reasons. The Court decided, however, that it would use the opportunity to clarify that the RLA cannot be read to require, “as a prerequisite to the NRAB’s jurisdiction, submission of proof of conferencing.” Moreover, the Court explained that this challenged requirement that proof of a conference be submitted before arbitration is commenced is not a jurisdictional matter.

Justice Ginsburg delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.
 

This entry was written by Ilyse Schuman.