Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 243.0

82 

UNION PACIFIC R. CO. v. LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS 

Opinion of the Court 

waits  too  long  to  raise  the  point.”  Kontrick  v.  Ryan,  540 
U. S. 443, 456 (2004). 

For  example,  we  have  held  nonjurisdictional  and  forfeit-
able  the  provision  in  Title  VII  of  the  Civil  Rights  Act  of 
1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq., requiring complainants to ﬁle 
a  timely  charge  of  discrimination  with  the  Equal  Employ­
ment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before proceeding to 
court.  Zipes  v.  Trans  World  Airlines,  Inc.,  455  U. S.  385, 
393 (1982).  We have also held nonjurisdictional and forfeit-
able  the  Title  VII  provision  exempting  employers  who  en­
gage  fewer  than  15  employees.  Arbaugh,  546  U. S.,  at  503, 
515–516.  And  we  have  determined  that  a  Chapter  7  trust­
ee’s  (or creditor’s)  limited  time to  object  to  the debtor’s  dis­
charge,  see  Fed.  Rule  Bkrtcy.  Proc.  4004,  is  a  claim-
processing, not a jurisdictional, matter.  Kontrick, 540 U. S., 
at  446–447,  460.  In  contrast,  relying  on  a  long  line  of  this 
Court’s  decisions  left  undisturbed  by  Congress,  we  have  re­
afﬁrmed  the  jurisdictional  character  of  the  time  limitation 
for  ﬁling  a  notice  of  appeal  stated  in  28  U. S. C.  § 2107(a). 
Bowles  v.  Russell,  551  U. S.  205,  209–211  (2007).  See  also 
John  R.  Sand  &  Gravel  Co.  v.  United  States,  552  U. S.  130, 
132 (2008) (court must consider sua sponte timeliness of law­
suit  ﬁled  against  the  United  States  in  the  Court  of  Federal 
Claims). 

With these decisions in mind, we turn back to the require­
ment that parties to minor disputes, as a last chance prearbi­
tration, attempt settlement “in conference,” 45 U. S. C. § 152 
Second,  Sixth.  See  supra,  at  73–74,  and  n.  3.  This  obliga­
tion is imposed on carriers and grievants alike but, we hold, 
its satisfaction does not condition the adjudicatory authority 
of the Board. 

The  Board’s  jurisdiction  extends  to  “all  disputes  between 
carriers  and  their  employees  ‘growing  out  of  grievances  or 
out  of  the  interpretation  or  application  of  agreements  con­
cerning  rates  of  pay,  rules,  or  working  conditions . . . .’  ”