Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 228

OCTOBER  TERM,  2009 

67 

Syllabus 

UNION  PACIFIC  RAILROAD  CO.  v.  BROTHERHOOD
 
OF  LOCOMOTIVE  ENGINEERS  AND  TRAINMEN
 
GENERAL  COMMITTEE  OF  ADJUSTMENT,
 
CENTRAL  REGION
 

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for 
the seventh circuit 

No. 08–604.  Argued October 7, 2009—Decided December 8, 2009 

The  Railway  Labor  Act  (RLA  or  Act)  was  enacted  to  promote  peaceful 
and  efﬁcient  resolution  of  labor  disputes.  As  amended,  the  Act  man­
dates  arbitration  of  “minor  disputes”  before  panels  composed  of  two 
representatives  of  labor  and  two  of  industry,  with  a  neutral  referee  as 
tiebreaker.  Union  Paciﬁc  R.  Co.  v.  Price,  360  U. S.  601,  610–613.  To 
supply  arbitrators,  Congress  established  the  National  Railroad  Adjust­
ment Board (NRAB or Board), a board of 34 private persons represent­
ing  labor  and  industry  in  equal  numbers.  45  U. S. C.  § 153  First  (a). 
Before  resorting  to  arbitration,  employees  and  carriers  must  exhaust 
the  grievance  procedures  in  their  collective-bargaining  agreement 
(hereinafter  CBA),  see  § 153  First  (i),  a  stage  known  as  “on-property” 
proceedings.  As  a  ﬁnal  prearbitration  step,  the  parties  must  attempt 
settlement  “in  conference”  between  representatives  of  the  carrier  and 
the  grievant-employee.  § 152  Second,  Sixth.  The  RLA  contains  in­
structions  concerning  the  place  and  time  of  conferences,  but  does  not 
“supersede  the  provisions  of  any  agreement  (as  to  conferences)  .  .  .  be­
tween the parties,” § 152 Sixth; in common practice the conference may 
be as informal as a telephone conversation.  If the parties fail to achieve 
resolution,  either  may  refer  the  matter  to  the  NRAB.  § 153  First  (i). 
Submissions to the Board must include “a full statement of the facts and 
all  supporting  data  bearing  upon  the  disputes.”  Ibid.  Parties  may 
seek  court  review  of  an  NRAB  panel  order  on  one  or  more  stated 
grounds: “failure . . . to comply with the requirements of [the RLA], . . . 
failure  of  the  order  to  conform,  or  conﬁne  itself,  to  matters  within  the 
scope of the division’s jurisdiction, or . . . fraud or corruption by a mem­
ber  of  the  division  making  the  order.”  § 153  First  (q).  Courts  of  Ap­
peals  have  divided  on  whether,  in  addition  to  the  statutory  grounds 
for  judicial  review  stated  in  § 153  First  (q),  courts  may  review  NRAB 
proceedings for due process violations. 

After  petitioner  Union  Paciﬁc  Railroad  Co.  (hereinafter  Carrier) 
charged  ﬁve  of  its  employees  with  disciplinary  violations,  their  union 
(hereinafter  Union)  initiated  grievance  proceedings  pursuant  to  the