29 C.F.R. § 301.2

Classes of disputes

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The disputes between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, including cases pending and unadjusted on the date of approval of this act (June 21, 1934, 48 Stat. 1185; 45 U.S.C. 151-162), shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes; but, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board with a full statement of the facts and all supporting data bearing upon the disputes.

(b) No petition shall be considered by any division of the Board unless the subject matter has been handled in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, approved June 21, 1934.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1992–2019 · leading case: Jordany Pierre-Paul v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Ge, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jordany Pierre-Paul v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Ge, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019). “" 29 C.F.R. § 301.2 (b). Observing that "Congress gave the Board no authority to adopt rules of jurisdictional dimension," the Court held that the Board's regulation was a claim-processing rule.”

Union Pac. R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent. Region, 558 U.S. 67 (2009). “” 29 CFR § 301.2 (b). But that provision, as other prescriptions in Circular One, is a claim-processing rule.”

Pruidze v. Holder, 632 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 301.2 (b). One of those provisions required the parties to conference before submitting a dispute to the Adjustment Board for arbitration, 29 C.”

McClendon v. Union Pac. R.R., 640 F.3d 800 (8th Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “The NRAB issued a “Third Party Notice” seeking the views of the UTU, which urged the arbitration Board to dismiss the claim because (i) it was not timely presented to the UP by McClendon as required in Article C-16 of the UP-UTU Agreement, 3 and (ii) it was not “handled in the…”

Daniel L. Kulavic, Cross-Appellee v. Chicago & Illinois Midland Ry. Co., 1 F.3d 507 (7th Cir. 1993). “§ 153 First (i); 29 C.F.R. § 301.2 (a) (1992)). The court did not discuss the meaning of the language set forth in 29 C.”

Polewsky v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 812 F. Supp. 33 (D. Vt. 1992). “§ 153 (i) (the RLA); 29 C.F.R. § 301.2 (a) (1990) (the Board procedures).”

Polewsky v. Bay Colony R.R., 799 F. Supp. 396 (D. Vt. 1992). “§ 153 First (i); 29 C.F.R. § 301.2 (a). This language did not, as petitioner contends, limit the NRAB’s review to evidence raised prior to the remand; it simply limited the evidence to that which was related to the particular facts and circumstances of the dispute.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.