Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 757 F.2d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 757 F.2d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES’ ASSOCIATION, Appellant
v.
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, Et Al.
84-5160.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Apr 5, 1985.
757 F.2d 1342
Joseph Guerrieri, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom Clinton J. Miller, III, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant., Marc Richman, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Justice, Joseph E. diGenova, U.S. Atty., Robert Greenspan, Atty. Dept, of Justice, and Ronald M. Etters, Gen. Counsel, Nat. Mediation Bd., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellees., Richard T. Conway and Ralph J. Moore, Jr., Washington, D.C., were on the brief for National Railway Labor Conference, amicus curiae, urging reversal.
Bork, Davis, Per Curiam, Wald.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Opinion PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM:

The Railway Labor Executives’ Association appeals the judgment of the district[*1343] court denying the Association injunctive relief and granting summary judgment to the National Mediation Board and the General Services Administration. The Association argues that subsections 3 First (s) and 3 First (t) of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (s)-(t), when interpreted in light of the National Mediation Board’s historic practice and other provisions of that Act, require the National Mediation Board to make private offices at government expense available to labor members of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. Having carefully considered the briefs and presentations at oral argument, we find that the Railway Labor Act does not impose any such obligation for the reasons set forth in the thorough opinion of-the district court, which is reported at 583 F.Supp. 279 (D.D.C.1984) (Parker, J.). The judgment of the district court is accordingly-

Affirmed.