C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER III—NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD › PART 301—RULES OF PROCEDURE

29 C.F.R. § 301.5

Form of submission

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

(a) Parties. All parties to the dispute must be stated in each submission.

(b) Statement of claim. Under the caption “statement of claims” the petitioner or petitioners must clearly state the particular question upon which an award is desired.

(c) Statement of facts. In a “joint statement of facts,” if possible, briefly, but fully set forth the controlling facts involved. In the event of inability to agree upon a “joint statement of facts,” then each party shall show separately the facts as they respectively believe them to be.

(d) Position of employees. Under the caption “position of employees” the employees must clearly and briefly set forth all relevant, argumentative facts, including all documentary evidence submitted in exhibit form, quoting the agreement or rules involved, if any; and all data submitted in support of employees' position must affirmatively show the same to have been presented to the carrier and made a part of the particular question in dispute.

(e) Position of carrier. Under the caption “position of carrier” the carrier must clearly and briefly set forth all relevant, argumentative facts, including all documentary evidence submitted in exhibit form, quoting the agreement or rules involved, if any; and all data submitted in support of carrier's position must affirmatively show the same to have been presented to the employees or duly authorized representative thereof and made a part of the particular question in dispute.

(f) Signatures. All submissions must be signed by the parties submitting the same.

(g) Ex parte submission. In event of an ex parte submission the same general form of submission is required. The petitioner will serve written notice upon the appropriate Division of the Adjustment Board of intention to file an ex parte submission on a certain date (30 days hence), and at the same time provide the other party with copy of such notice. For the purpose of identification such notice will state the question involved and give a brief description of the dispute. The Secretary of the appropriate Division of the Adjustment Board will immediately thereupon advise the other party of the receipt of such notice and request that the submission of such other party be filed with such Division within the same period of time.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1978–2018 · leading case: Union Pac. R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent. Region, 558 U.S. 67 (2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Union Pac. R. Co. v. Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent. Region, 558 U.S. 67 (2009). · cites it 4× “; see 29 CFR § 301.5 (d), (e) (submissions “must clearly and briefly set forth all relevant, argumentative facts, including all documentary evidence”).”
Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent. Region v. Union Pac. R.R., 522 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “According to 29 C.F.R. § 301.5 (d), employees must submit to the Board a document which “clearly and briefly set[s] forth all relevant, argumentative facts, including all documentary evidence submitted in exhibit form, quoting the agreement or rules involved, if any; and all…”
Daniel L. Kulavic, Cross-Appellee v. Chicago & Illinois Midland Ry. Co., 1 F.3d 507 (7th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 301.5 (d) and (c). As we stated in Atchison, it is particularly likely that a PLB is limited to reviewing the evidence presented in the "on premises” investigation.”
Reginald Childs v. Pennsylvania Fed'n Bhd. of Maint. Way Employees, & Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 831 F.2d 429 (3rd Cir. 1987). “” 29 C.F.R. § 301.5 (d). Childs retained counsel to intercede on his behalf.”
Bradford v. Union Pac. R.R., 872 F. Supp. 2d 912 (D. Ariz. 2012). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 301.5 (d)(e); § 301.6. It is undisputed that the PLB did not refuse to hear any evidence or argument offered by the parties.”
Clayton v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 452 F. Supp. 107 (M.D. La. 1978). “” 29 CFR 301.5(c). It is upon these submissions that the Board made its decision.”
Bradford v. Union Pac. R.R., 767 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2014). “See 29 C.F.R. § 301.5 (d) (“[A]ll data submitted in support of employees’ position must affirmatively show the same to have been presented to the carrier and made a part of the particular question in dispute.”
Bhd. of Maint. of Way Employees v. Denver & Rio Grande W. Ry. Co., 963 F. Supp. 946 (D. Colo. 1997). “The Board cited 29 C.F.R. § 301.5 , which precludes consideration by the Board of evidence not presented below because the Board is an appellate tribunal.”
Bhd. of Maint. of Way Employees v. St. Johnsbury & Lamoille Cnty. R.R./M.P.S. Assocs., Inc., 794 F.2d 816 (2d Cir. 1986). “” 29 C.F.R. § 301.5 (c); see also §§ 301.5(e), 301.”
Polewsky v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 812 F. Supp. 33 (D. Vt. 1992). “" 29 C.F.R. § 301.5 (d) and (e). In his claim to the NRAB, it was the plaintiff who brought up his employment record — his nineteen years of railroad service — as support for his claim that he should be accorded more lenient treatment.”
Bhd. of Locomotive Engi v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “According to 29 C.F.R. § 301.5 (d), employees must submit to the Board a document which “clearly and briefly set[s] forth all relevant, argu- mentative facts, including all documentary evidence submitted in exhibit form, quoting the agreement or rules involved, if any; and all…”
Brohd Engineers & Tr v. Union Pac. (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “According to 29 C.F.R. § 301.5 (d), employees must submit to the Board a document which “clearly and briefly set[s] forth all relevant, argu- mentative facts, including all documentary evidence submitted in exhibit form, quoting the agreement or rules involved, if any; and all…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— 29 C.F.R. § 301.5(c) — 1 case
Clayton v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 452 F. Supp. 107 (M.D. La. 1978). “” 29 CFR 301.5(c). It is upon these submissions that the Board made its decision.”
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.