Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 233.0

72 

UNION PACIFIC R. CO. v. LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS 

Opinion of the Court 

“without  authority  to  assume  jurisdiction  over  the  [employ­
ees’] claim[s],” Panel Decision 72a, its dismissals lacked tena­
ble  grounding.  We  therefore  afﬁrm  the  judgment  of  the 
Seventh Circuit setting aside the panel’s orders. 

I
 
A
 

Concerned that labor disputes would lead to strikes bring­
ing railroads to a halt, Congress enacted the Railway Labor 
Act (RLA or Act), 44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 151 
et seq., in 1926 to promote peaceful and efﬁcient resolution of 
those disputes.  See Union Paciﬁc R. Co. v.  Price, 360 U. S. 
601, 609 (1959); § 151a.  The Act instructs labor and industry 
“to  exert  every  reasonable  effort  to  make  and  maintain 
agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working con­
ditions, and to settle all disputes, whether arising out of the 
application  of  such  agreements  or  otherwise,  in  order  to 
avoid  any  interruption  to  commerce  or  to  the  operation  of 
any carrier . . . .”   §  152  First; see Trainmen v.  Jacksonville 
Terminal  Co.,  394  U. S.  369,  377–378  (1969)  (describing  obli­
gation  to  pursue  agreement  as  the  “heart  of  the  [RLA]”). 
As part of its endeavor, Congress provided a framework for 
the settlement and voluntary arbitration of “minor disputes.” 
See  Price,  360  U. S.,  at  609–610. 
(In  the  railroad  industry, 
the  term  “minor  disputes”  means,  primarily,  “grievances 
arising  from  the  application  of  collective  bargaining  agree­
ments to particular situations.”  Id., at 609.) 1 

Many  railroads,  however,  resisted  voluntary  arbitration. 
See id., at 610.  Congress therefore amended the Act in 1934 
(1934 Amendment) to mandate arbitration of minor disputes; 
under  the  altered  scheme,  arbitration  occurs  before  panels 

1 In contrast to minor disputes, which assume “the existence of a collec­
tive agreement,” major disputes are those “over the formation of collective 
agreements  or  efforts  to  secure  them.  .  .  .  They  look  to  the  acquisition  of 
rights  for  the  future,  not  to  assertion  of  rights  claimed  to  have  vested  in 
the past.”  Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v.  Burley, 325 U. S. 711, 723 (1945).