Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 229

68  UNION  PACIFIC  R.  CO.  v.  LOCOMOTIVE  ENGINEERS 

Syllabus 

CBA.  The Union asserts that the parties conferenced all ﬁve disputes 
and the Carrier concedes that they conferenced at least two.  Dissatis­
ﬁed with the outcome of the on-property proceedings, the Union sought 
arbitration  before  the  NRAB’s  First  Division.  Both  parties  ﬁled  sub­
missions  in the  ﬁve  cases,  but neither  mentioned  conferencing  as a  dis­
puted matter.  Yet, in each case, both parties necessarily knew whether 
the  Union  and  the  Carrier  had  conferred;  and  the  Board’s  governing 
rule, published in Circular One, which prescribes Board procedures, in­
structs carriers and employees to “set forth all relevant, argumentative 
facts,” 29 CFR § 301.5(d), (e).  Just prior to the hearing, one of the arbi­
tration  panel’s  industry  representatives  objected,  sua  sponte,  that  the 
on-property  record  included  no  proof  of  conferencing.  The  Carrier 
thereafter embraced  that objection.  The  referee allowed  the Union  to 
submit  evidence  of  conferencing.  The  Union  did  so,  but  it  maintained 
that  the  proof-of-conferencing  issue  was  untimely  raised,  indeed  for­
feited, as the Carrier had not objected before the date set for argument. 
The panel, in ﬁve identical decisions, dismissed the petitions for want of 
jurisdiction.  The  record  could  not  be  supplemented  to  meet  the  no­
proof-of-conferencing  objection,  the  panel  reasoned,  for  as  an  appellate 
tribunal, the panel was not empowered to consider de novo evidence and 
arguments.  The  Union  sought  review  in  the  Federal  District  Court, 
which  afﬁrmed  the  Board’s  decision.  On  appeal,  the  Seventh  Circuit 
observed that the “single question” at issue was whether written docu­
mentation  of  the  conference  in  the  on-property  record  was  a  necessary 
prerequisite  to  NRAB  arbitration,  and  determined  that  there  was  no 
such  prerequisite  in  the  statute  or  rules.  But  instead  of  resting  its 
decision  on  the  Union’s  primary,  statute-based  argument—that  the 
panel  erred  in  ruling  that  it  lacked  jurisdiction  over  the  cases—it  re­
versed  on  the  ground  that  the  NRAB’s  proceedings  were  incompatible 
with due process. 

Held: 

1.  The Seventh Circuit erred in resolving the Union’s appeal under a 
constitutional,  rather  than  a  statutory,  headline.  This  Court  granted 
certiorari to address whether NRAB orders may be set aside for failure 
to  comply  with  due  process  notwithstanding  § 153  First  (q)’s  limited 
grounds  for  review.  But  so  long  as  a  respondent  does  not  “seek  to 
modify the judgment below,” true here, the respondent may “rely upon 
any matter appearing in the record in support of the judgment.”  Blum 
v.  Bacon, 457 U. S. 132, 137, n. 5.  The Seventh Circuit understood that 
the  Union  had  pressed  “statutory  and  constitutional”  arguments,  but 
observed that both arguments homed in on a “single question”: Is writ­
ten documentation of the conference in the on-property record a neces­