Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 231

70  UNION  PACIFIC  R.  CO.  v.  LOCOMOTIVE  ENGINEERS 

Syllabus 

process.  Rooted in § 152, the RLA’s “[g]eneral duties” section, and not 
moored to the NRAB’s “[e]stablishment[,] . . . powers[,] and duties” set 
out  in  § 153  First,  conferencing  is  often  informal  in  practice,  and  is  no 
more “jurisdictional” than is the presuit resort to the EEOC held nonju­
risdictional and forfeitable in Zipes.  And if the conference requirement 
is not “jurisdictional,” then failure initially to submit proof of conferenc­
ing  cannot  be  of  that  genre.  And  although  the  Carrier  alleges  that 
NRAB  decisions  support  characterizing  conferencing  as  jurisdictional, 
if  the  NRAB  lacks  authority  to  deﬁne  its  panels’  jurisdiction,  surely 
the panels themselves lack that authority.  Furthermore, NRAB panels 
have variously addressed the matter.  Pp. 81–85. 

(b)  Neither  the  RLA  nor  Circular  One  could  plausibly  be  read  to 
require, as a prerequisite to the NRAB’s exercise of jurisdiction, submis­
sion  of  proof  of  conferencing.  Instructions  on  party  submissions  are 
claim-processing,  not  jurisdictional,  rules.  The  Board  itself  has  recog­
nized  that  conferencing  may  not  be  a  “question  in  dispute,”  and  when 
that  is  so,  proof  thereof  need  not  accompany  party  submissions.  It 
makes  sense  to  exclude  at  the  arbitration  stage  newly  presented 
“data”  supporting  the  employee’s  grievance,  29  CFR  § 301.5(d)—evi­
dence  the  carrier  had  no  opportunity  to  consider  prearbitration.  But 
conferencing  is not  a  fact  bearing on  the  merits  of a  grievance.  More­
over,  the  RLA  respects  the  parties’  right  to  order  for  themselves  the 
conference  procedures  they  will  follow.  See  45  U. S. C.  § 152  Sixth. 
Pp. 85–86. 

522 F. 3d 746, afﬁrmed. 

Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. 

J.  Scott  Ballenger  argued  the  cause  for  petitioner.  With 
him  on  the  briefs  were  Maureen  E.  Mahoney,  Melissa  B. 
Arbus,  James  C.  Knapp,  Jr.,  J.  Michael  Hemmer,  Patricia 
O. Kiscoan, and Donald J. Munro. 

Thomas  H.  Geoghegan  argued  the  cause  and  ﬁled  a  brief 

for respondent.* 

*Peter Buscemi, Harry A. Rissetto, Jonathan C. Fritts, and Joanna L. 
Moorhead  ﬁled  a  brief  for  the  National  Railway  Labor  Conference  et  al. 
as amici curiae urging reversal. 

Briefs  of  amici  curiae  urging  afﬁrmance  were  ﬁled  for  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  and  Congress  of  Industrial  Organizations  by  Jona­
than  P.  Hiatt,  James  B.  Coppess,  and  Laurence  Gold;  and  for  the  Broth­
erhood  of  Locomotive  Engineers  and  Trainmen,  National  Division,  by 
Harold A. Ross.