Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 238.0

Cite as: 558 U. S. 67 (2009) 

77 

Opinion of the Court 

On his own initiative, unprompted by the Carrier, and in ex­
ecutive  session,  the  industry  representative  asserted  that 
the  on-property  record  included  no  proof  of  conferencing. 
See ibid.  The Carrier thereafter embraced the panel mem­
ber’s  objection.  The  neutral  referee  informed  the  Union  of 
the issue and adjourned the hearing, allowing the Union “to 
submit  evidence  that  conferencing  had  in  fact  occurred.” 
See  id.,  ¶¶ 21–23.  The  Union  did  so,  offering  phone  logs, 
handwritten  notes,  and  correspondence  between  the  parties 
as  evidence  of  conferencing  in  each  of  the  ﬁve  cases.  E. g., 
Panel  Decision  67a–68a.  From  its  ﬁrst  notice  of  the  objec­
tion,  however,  the  Union  maintained  that  the  proof-of­
conferencing  issue  was  untimely  raised,  indeed  forfeited, 
as  the  Carrier  itself  had  not  objected  prior  to  the  date  set 
for argument  of the cases.  E. g.,  id., at 67a; Pet.  to Review 
¶¶ 22, 29, 30, 54. 

On  March  15,  2005,  nearly  one  year  after  the  question  of 
conferencing ﬁrst arose, the panel, in ﬁve identical decisions, 
dismissed  the  petitions  for  want  of  “authority  to  assume  ju­
risdiction  over  the  claim[s].”  Panel  Decision  72a.  Citing 
Circular  One,  see  supra,  at  73,  and  “the  weight  of  arbitral 
precedent,”  the  panel  stated  that  “the  evidentiary  record” 
must  be  deemed  “closed  once  a  Notice  of  Intent  has  been 
ﬁled  with  the  NRAB  .  .  .  .”  Panel  Decision  71a.5  In  ex­
plaining  why  the  record  could  not  be  supplemented  to  meet 
the no-proof-of-conferencing objection, the panel emphasized 
that  it  was  “an  appellate  tribunal,  as  opposed  to  one  which 
is  empowered  to  consider  and  rule  on  de  novo  evidence  and 
arguments.”  Id., at 69a. 

The  two  labor  representatives  dissented.  The  Carrier’s 
submissions, they reasoned, took no exception based on fail­
ure  to  conference  or  to  prove  conferencing;  therefore,  they 
concluded,  under  a  “well  settled  principle  governing  the 

5 The  panel  observed,  however,  that  the  records  and  notes  offered  by 
the  Union,  “on  their  face,  may  be  regarded  as  supportive  of  its  position 
that the conference[s] occurred.”  Panel Decision 69a.