U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1970

United Transportation Union v. Clinchfield Railroad Company

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided March 4, 1970 · Celebrezze, Brooks, McAllister

427 F.2d 161; 74 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2318; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10460 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Russell M. Baker, Dallas, Tex. (Baker, Foreman & Boudreaux, Dallas, Tex., on the brief), for appellant., Ferdinand Powell, Jr., Johnson City, Tenn., (Harry W. Lawrence, Acting Gen. Sol., Erwin, Tenn., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

L. F. Cole v. Erie Lackawanna Railway Company (6th Cir. 1976)
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen General Committee of Adjustment CSX Transportation Northern Lines v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (11th Cir. 2008)
Transportation Communications International Union v. Csx Transportation, Incorporated (7th Cir. 1994)
Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 1989)
Herbert Murray v. Consolidated Rail Corporation (6th Cir. 1984)
McConnell v. Alabama Great Southern Railroad (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 1976)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM ORDER.

The principal issue in this case is whether, under the Railway Labor Act, a special board of adjustment established by the parties to resolve certain disputes between the carrier and the union can render a valid award as to claims not set forth in the agreement.

Title 45 U.S.C. Section 158, Second, provides that “The cases which may be considered by (a special board of adjustment) shall be defined in the agreement establishing it * * Since the agreement establishing the special board provided- that it was formed “for the purpose of disposing of time claims which are listed in the docket appended (thereto) as Attachment ‘A’ ” and the appended docket contained only a list of names of six members of the union who were asserting time claims, the District Court properly concluded that only the six claims specified in the agreement could be considered.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.