Document: 439 U.S. 89 99 S.Ct. 399 58 L.Ed.2d 354 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.v.Kermit Kimball SHEEHAN. No. 78-344. Dec. 4, 1978. Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1979. See 1135, 1060. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner, the Union Pacific Railroad Co., discharged respondent for violating one of its employee work rules. Respondent thereupon began an action in state court alleging wrongful discharge and denial a fair hearing. While that claim was pending court, we decided Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville R. 406 320, 92 1562, 32 95 (1972), overruling Moore Illinois Central 312 630, 61 754, 85 L.Ed. 1089 (1941). held railroad violation collective-bargaining agreement must submit such dispute to National Adjustment Board resolution accordance with provisions Railway Labor Act, 44 Stat. (part 2) 577, as amended, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-188. Following our decision Andrews, stipulated dismissal state-court suit case dismissed without prejudice. then instituted proceeding before Board. After full written submissions by both parties two hearings, respondent's because he had failed file his appeal within time limits prescribed agreement. 2 claim, filed complaint United States District Court Utah, seeking order directing hear merits case, or, alternative, reinstatement money judgment. Jurisdiction based upon § 3 First (q) 153 (q).1 claimed requirements were tolled during pendency should be required decide on merits. admitting "persuasively argued tolling limits," nonetheless affirmed Board's awarded summary judgment petitioner. The demonstrate existence any grounds reversal set forth (q), there no "legal principle under which it [could] grant [respondent] relief Act." 423 F.Supp. 324, 329 (1976). Appeals Tenth Circuit reversed remanded 576 F.2d 854 (1978). At beginning opinion, stated: 4 "The real issue here is whether determination lacked jurisdiction non-compliance limitations modified collective bargaining deprived Sheehan due process rights. 5 "We conclude failure address plaintiff Sheehan's denied him process. . ." Id., at 855-856. 6 canvassed prior decisions concerning recognized these cases established scope judicial review "among narrowest known law." Nonetheless, believed "possible" extent "purely legal issues" re-examined light "implications arising from, developments since" Andrews. 856. concluded follows: 7 "As district noted, persuasive argument can made limits. expressed view Act federal contract governed enforceable law courts. applicability equitable question not doubt. do pass issue, hold consider circumstances opportunity heard right process." 857.2 8 If Appeals' remand argument, simply mistaken. record shows tendered Board, considered explicitly rejected it. App. Pet. Cert. 22.3 If, other hand, intended reverse rejection exceeded 9 Judicial orders limited three specific grounds: (1) comply Act; (2) conform, or confine, itself matters jurisdiction; (3) fraud corruption. (q). Only more bases may aside U.S., 325, S.Ct., 1565; Locomotive Engineers 373 33, 38, 83 1059, 10 172 (1963). There suggestion corruption here. And certainly acting conformity determining limitation governing filing action. does contend otherwise. Accordingly, agree Characterizing presented law, seemed here, alter availability review: dispositive party's objections fall categories provided Act. Section unequivocally states "findings [Adjustment Board] shall conclusive parties" only reasons specified therein. We have again emphasized this statutory language means just what says. See, e. g., Gunther San Diego A. E. 382 257, 263, 86 368, 371, 15 308 (1965); supra, 1062; Co. Price, 360 601, 616, 79 1351, 1359, 1460 (1959). nothing opinion suggests falls above-quoted precluding review. 11 A contrary conclusion would ignore terms, purposes legislative history In enacting legislation, Congress endeavored promote stability labor-management relations important national industry providing effective efficient remedies railroad-employee disputes out interpretation agreements. supra; Slocum Delaware, L. W. 339 239, 70 94 795 (1950). created tribunal consisting workers management secure prompt, orderly final settlement grievances arise daily between employees carriers regarding rates pay, rules working conditions. 611, 1356; Elgin J. Burley, 327 661, 664, 66 721, 722, 90 928 (1946). essential keep so-called "minor" Trainmen Chicago, I. 353 30, 40, 77 635, 640, 622 (1957). effectiveness fulfilling task depends finality determinations. Normally will benefit worker: He receive administrative answer dispute; if wins, spared expense effort time-consuming appeals less able bear than railroad. 613-614, 1358-1359. Here, happens cut way. But evenhanded application surely requires. 12 determined That binding parties, neither nor authority disturb motion leave proceed forma pauperis petition certiorari are therefore granted, 13 Reversed. 14 Mr. Justice BRENNAN MARSHALL concur result. provides, pertinent part: "If group employees, carrier aggrieved division make award referred it, terms include certain award, paragraph (p) could filed, division's .. affirm division, aside, whole part, proceedings further direct. On review, findings except chapter, confine itself, jurisdiction, member making order. subject sections 1291 1254 title 28." request attorney's fees section premised, provide fees. F.2d, 857-858. brief opposition writ certiorari, urges incurred courts below. correctly properly since did cross-petition certiorari. FEA Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 548, 560 n. 11, 96 2295, 2302, 49 (1976); see Mills Electric Auto-Lite 396 375, 381 620 24 593 (1970). reject Court. (p). Without passing propriety reliance subsection (p), sufficient authorizes "petitioner finally prevail" holding today, has triumph. support appeal, "Nor commence running until Utah claimant's breach November, 1972. Filing civil effect obviating [collective-bargaining] Agreement. When claimant pursue obligated so manner applicable Agreement property. Since Agreement, standing constrained dismiss non compliance [sic] limits." 22.

Category: 8