Featured case of the week

On Wednesday, October 7, 2009 the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case, Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive (08-604). I have decided to share this case with you because the Court's decision will have far-reaching effects on interstate commerce and future labor disputes in the railroad and airline industries. Perhaps more importantly, this case addresses the scope of the federal government's power in arbitration proceedings.

Union Pacific Railroad filed disciplinary charges against five of their employees. The employees invoked their right to dispute the charges by filing a claim with their union, The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen.

The Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 151 provides the procedure for resolving disputes. The first step is referred to as "on-property" proceedings which involve investigations, hearings and appeals on the railway property. If the issue is not resolved in this manner then the dispute is submitted to a conference. If a resolution is still not achieved, the parties may initiate an arbitrations proceeding before the National railroad Adjustment Board which will issue a binding decision on both parties.

In this case, the "on-property" proceedings and the conference failed to produce a resolution and the union initiated an arbitration proceeding with the Board. The union submitted notices of the discipline, hearing transcripts and all relevant exhibits relating to the contested charges. At the hearing, the Railroad argued that the union had not included written evidence of the conferencing stage and therefore, the Board should decline jurisdiction in this matter. The union did attempt to submit the evidence of conferencing but the Board would not accept the evidence after the fact and dismissed the claim.

The Railroad appealed the decision to the District Court which found for the defendants. The court's decision was based on the fact that conferencing is indeed a requirement and therefore, the Board acted appropriately.

Upon appeal, however, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit reversed the ruling holding that the Board denied the Brotherhood due process because the statutes, regulations and the collective bargaining agreement of the parties does not clearly state that evidence of the conferencing is required.

In other words, the union followed correct procedures throughout the process and their right to due process was denied based on a technicality.

The Railroad has appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court based on their belief that the government should not be involved in arbitration disputes between private parties.

What do you think? Stay tuned for more.