Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 237.0

76 

UNION PACIFIC R. CO. v. LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS 

Opinion of the Court 

B 

The  instant  matter  arose  when  petitioner  Union  Paciﬁc 
Railroad Co. (hereinafter Carrier) charged ﬁve of its employ­
ees  with  disciplinary  violations.  Their  union,  the  Brother­
hood  of  Locomotive  Engineers  and  Trainmen  (hereinafter 
Union),  initiated  grievance  proceedings  pursuant  to  the 
CBA.  The Union asserts that, following exhaustion of 
grievance  proceedings,  the  parties  conferenced  all  the  dis­
putes;  counsel  for  the  Carrier  conceded  at  argument  that  at 
least two of the disputes were conferenced, Tr. of Oral Arg. 7. 
Dissatisﬁed  with  the  outcome  of  the  on-property  proceed­
ings,  the  Union  sought  arbitration  before  the  First  Division 
of  the  NRAB.  The  Union  and the  Carrier,  from  early  2002 
through  2003,  ﬁled  simultaneous  submissions  in  the  ﬁve 
cases.  In each submission, the Union included the notice of 
discipline  (or  discharge),  the  hearing  transcript,  and  all  ex­
hibits  and  evidence  relating  to  the  underlying  adverse  ac­
tions used in the grievance proceeding.  Neither party men­
tioned conferencing as a disputed matter.  Yet, in each case, 
both  parties  necessarily  knew  whether  the  Union  and  the 
Carrier  had  conferred,  and  the  Board’s  governing  rule  in­
structs  carriers  and  employees  to  “set  forth  all  relevant, 
argumentative facts,” 29 CFR § 301.5(d), (e). 

On  March  18,  2004,  just  prior  to  the  hearing  on  the  em­
ployees’  claims,  one  of  the  industry  representatives  on  the 
arbitration  panel  raised  an  objection.  Petition  to  Review 
and  Vacate  Awards  and  Orders  of  First  Div.  NRAB  in 
No. 05–civ–2401  (ND Ill.), ¶ 20 (hereinafter  Pet. to Review). 

and  thereby  violated  due  process.  We  summarily  reversed,  observing 
that  the  Board  had  in  fact  considered  the  plea  for  equitable  tolling  and 
explicitly rejected it.  Id.,  at 92.  We added that if the  Court of Appeals 
“intended to reverse the [NRAB’s] rejection of [the employee’s] equitable 
tolling  argument,”  then  the  court  had  exceeded  the  bounds  § 153  First 
(q)  placed  on  its  review  authority.  Id.,  at  93.  In  determining  whether 
the  CBA’s  time  limitation  was  tolled,  we  said,  the  Board  “certainly  was 
acting  within  its  jurisdiction  and  in  conformity  with  .  .  .  the  Act.”  Ibid.