29 U.S.C. § 182
Exemption of Railway Labor Act from subchapter
The provisions of this subchapter shall not be applicable with respect to any matter which is subject to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act [45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.], as amended from time to time.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1957–2009 · leading case: Raymond Crilly v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth. & United Transp. Union, Local 1594, 529 F.2d 1355 (3rd Cir. 1976).
Raymond Crilly v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth. & United Transp. Union, Local 1594, 529 F.2d 1355 (3rd Cir. 1976). “Thus, the exemption in § 212 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 182 , for “any matter subject to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act” is not applicable.”
California v. Taylor, 353 U.S. 553 (1957). “156 , 29 U. S. C. § 182 , but it has provided, by the Railway Labor Act, techniques peculiar to that industry.”
Csx Transp. Inc. v. Neil J. Marquar, Mac A. Fleming, F.N. Simpson, & Bhd. of Maint. of Way Employes, 980 F.2d 359 (6th Cir. 1992). “29 U.S.C. § 182 . While this provision clearly states that the damages provision of the LMRA does not apply to the RLA, this passage cannot *365 be used to show by negative implication that Congress expressly indicated that no monetary damages are available under the RLA.”
Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Etc., 324 F.2d 217 (9th Cir. 1963). “An extended period of congressional experimentation in the field of railway labor legislation resulted in the Railway Labor Act and produced its machinery for conciliation, mediation, arbitration and adjustments of disputes.”
Davenport v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 981 F. Supp. 6 (D.D.C. 1997). “Its collective bargaining agreements with its unions are therefore governed by the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.”
Gilliland v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Intern., 741 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (N.D. Ga. 2009). “See 29 U.S.C. § 182 (LMRA not applicable to matters subject to the RLA); 45 U.”
Gilliland v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 741 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (N.D. Ga. 2009). “See 29 U.S.C. § 182 (LMRA not applicable to matters subject to the RLA); 45 U.”
Cent. Tool Co. v. Int'l Ass'n of Machinists Nat'l Pension Fund, Benefit Plan A, 811 F.2d 651 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “with respect to money or other thing of value paid to a trust fund established by such representative, for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees of such employer, and their families and dependents (or of such employees, families, and dependents jointly with the…”
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.