Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 245.0

84 

UNION PACIFIC R. CO. v. LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS 

Opinion of the Court 

the  Board  no  authority  to  adopt  rules  of  jurisdictional  di­
mension.  See  45  U. S. C.  § 153  First  (v)  (authorizing  the 
NRAB to “adopt such rules as it deems necessary to control 
proceedings  before  the  respective  divisions  and  not  in  con­
ﬂict with the provisions of this section”).  And when the fact 
of conferencing is genuinely contested, we see no reason why 
the  panel  could  not  adjourn  the  proceeding  pending  cure  of 
any  lapse.  Circular  One  does  not  exclude  such  a  sensible 
solution. 

The  Carrier  cites  NRAB  decisions  that  allegedly  support 
characterization  of  conferencing  as  jurisdictional.  If  the 
NRAB lacks authority to deﬁne the jurisdiction of its panels, 
however,  surely  the  panels  themselves  lack  that  authority. 
Furthermore,  NRAB  panels  have  variously  addressed  the 
matter.  For example, in NRAB Third Div. Award No. 15880 
(Oct. 26, 1967), the panel, although characterizing the confer­
encing  requirement  as  “jurisdictional,”  said  that  “[i]f  one  of 
the  parties  refuses  or  fails  to  avail  itself  of  a  conference 
where there is an opportunity to do so, it cannot then assert 
the  defense  of  a  lack  of  jurisdiction.”  Id.,  at  2.  See  also 
NRAB  Fourth  Div.  Award  No.  5074  (June  21,  2001)  (same); 
NRAB  Third  Div.  Award  No.  28147  (Oct.  16,  1989)  (same). 
Cf.  Arbaugh,  546  U. S.,  at  511  (“unreﬁned”  uses  of  the  word 
“jurisdiction”  are  entitled  to  “no  precedential  effect”  (inter­
nal  quotation  marks  omitted)).  And  in  NRAB  First  Div. 
Award No. 23867, p. 5 (Apr. 7, 1988), the panel observed that 
the  ordinary  remedy  for  lack  of  conferencing  is  to  “dismiss 
th[e]  claim  without  prejudice  to  allow  Claimant  to  cure  the 
jurisdictional defect.”  That panel reached the merits never­
theless.  Ibid.  Cf.  Steel  Co.,  523  U. S.,  at  94  (“Jurisdiction 
is  power  to  declare the  law,  and  when  it  ceases to  exist,  the 
only  function  remaining  to  the  [tribunal]  is  that  of  announc­
ing  the  fact  and  dismissing  the  cause.”  (quoting  Ex  parte 
McCardle,  7  Wall.  506,  514  (1869))).  We  note,  in  addition, 
the  acknowledgment  of  the  Carrier’s  counsel  that,  if  confer­