29 C.F.R. § 301.7

Hearings

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

(a) Oral hearings will be granted if requested by the parties or either of them and due notice will be given the parties of the time and date of the hearing.

(b) The parties are, however, charged with the duty and responsibility of including in their original written submission all known relevant, argumentative facts and documentary evidence.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1966–2024 · leading case: Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent. Region v. Union Pac. R.R., 522 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent. Region v. Union Pac. R.R., 522 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2008). “See also 29 C.F.R. § 301.7 (b) (“the parties are, however, charged with the duty and responsibility of including in their original written submission all known relevant, argumentative facts and documentary evidence.”

Bhd. Ry. Carmen Div., Transp. Commc'ns Int'l Union, Afl-Cio v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 956 F.2d 156 (7th Cir. 1992). “51 and 29 C.F.R. § 301.7 (b). This is not entirely clear but in any event no one could suppose that a party has a duty to introduce (or rather, try to introduce) evidence at that stage, as the district judge appears to have believed.”

J. W. Edwards v. St. Louis-San Francisco R.R. Co., 361 F.2d 946 (1st Cir. 1966). “" 29 CFR 301.7(a). The rules also specify the manner in which such a request shall be made: "(c) Parties to a dispute are required to state in all submissions whether or not an oral hearing is desired.”

Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen, Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, W. Lines v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (N.D. Ill. 2018). “6 , and that the parties must include in their original written submission to the Board “all known relevant, argumentative facts and documentary evidence,” 29 C.F.R. § 301.7 . 9 termination, as well as the fact that the Railroad included the plea as a basis for its denial of the…”

Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen v. Wisconsin Cent. Ltd. (N.D. Ill. 2024). “Here in federal court, Wisconsin Central moves for summary judgment, argu- ing that the Public Law Board acted outside of its jurisdiction and violated Wisconsin Central’s due process rights when it decided the dispute without considering 4This is in contrast to 29 C.F.R. §…”

Bhd. of Locomotive Engi v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (7th Cir. 2008). “See also 29 C.F.R. § 301.7 (b) (“the parties are, however, charged with the duty and responsibility of including in their original written submission all known relevant, argumentative facts and documentary evidence.”

Brohd Engineers & Tr v. Union Pac. (7th Cir. 2008). “See also 29 C.F.R. § 301.7 (b) (“the parties are, however, charged with the duty and responsibility of including in their original written submission all known relevant, argumentative facts and documentary evidence.”

US Airline Pilots Ass'n v. US Airways, Inc., 604 F. App'x 142 (3rd Cir. 2015). “In support of its argument that the Arbitrator failed to comply with the RLA in refusing an additional hearing on the 3% Issue, USA-PA also cites 29 C.F.R. § 301.7 (a), which states that ”[o]ral hearings will be granted if requested by the parties or either of them.”

US Airline Pilots Ass'n v. US Airways Inc, 604 F. App'x 142 (3rd Cir. 2015). “In support of its argument that the Arbitrator failed to comply with the RLA in refusing an additional hearing on the 3% Issue, USA-PA also cites 29 C.F.R. § 301.7 (a), which states that "[o]ral hearings will-be granted if requested by the parties or either of them.”

— 29 C.F.R. § 301.7(a) — 1 case

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.