An appeal of right to the Board is permitted. The appeal must be filed within 20 days upon the Board of a final arbitration decision, unless a later date is authorized by the Board, and is subject to the page limitations of § 1115.2(d). For arbitrations authorized under part 1108, subparts A and B, of this chapter, the Board's standard of review of arbitration decisions will be narrow, and relief will only be granted on grounds that the decision is inconsistent with sound principles of rail regulation economics, a clear abuse of arbitral authority or discretion occurred, the decision directly contravenes statutory authority, or the award limitation was violated.
For labor arbitration decisions, the Board's standard of review is set forth in Chicago and North Western Transportation Company—Abandonment—near Dubuque & Oelwein, Iowa, 3 I.C.C.2d 729 (1987), aff'd sub nom. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 862 F.2d 330 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The timely filing of a petition will not automatically stay the effect of the arbitration decision. A stay may be requested under § 1115.3(f).
[81 FR 69417, Oct. 6, 2016, as amended at 88 FR 735, Jan. 4, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Swonger v. Surface Transp. Bd., 265 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 2001).
“IBEW, now codified at 49 C.F.R. § 1115.8 (1999). In this case, the STB declined to review the arbitrator's decision, noting that the decision turned on the arbitrafor's factual findings, which, according to the STB, deserved deference absent dome egregious error.”
Union Pac. R.R. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 358 F.3d 31 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
“And the Board itself decided to review the panel’s award despite SPEEC’s argument that the award was not a “final arbitration decision” for purposes of 49 C.F.R. § 1115.8 . See Public Utilities Comm.”
Union R.R. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 242 F.3d 458 (3rd Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “On November 10, 1997, the USWA petitioned the STB for an administrative review of the Witt Award, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 1115.8 . By a decision dated December 16, 1998, the STB declined review of the Witt Award.”
Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Bhd. of R.R. Signalmen, 164 F.3d 847 (4th Cir. 1998).
“3d at 349 , it is subject to review by the STB, see 49 C.F.R. § 1115.8 . Moreover, the STB’s decision reviewing an arbitration under the New York Dock procedures is subject to judicial review under the Hobbs Act, 28 U.”
Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. M & B R.R., 65 F. Supp. 2d 1234 (M.D. Ala. 1999).
“Moreover, “[i]f, in the exercise of its duties, the STD exceeds the scope of its authority in approving a transaction subject to its jurisdiction, a party may seek review of the STD’s decision in a court of appeals under the provisions of 28 U.”
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.