45 U.S.C. § 1113

Intercity passenger service

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 45 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Responsibility of Conrail to provide crews terminated; negotiations for employee transfers

After January 1, 1983, Conrail shall be relieved of the responsibility to provide crews for intercity passenger service on the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak, Amtrak Commuter, and Conrail, and the employees with seniority in both freight and passenger service shall commence negotiations not later than 120 days after August 13, 1981, for the right of such employees to move from one service to the other once each six-month period. Such agreement shall ensure that Conrail, Amtrak, and Amtrak Commuter have the right to furlough one employee in the same class or craft for each employee who returns through the exercise of seniority rights. If agreement is not reached within 360 days, such matter shall be submitted to binding arbitration.

(b) Eligibility of employees for employee protection benefits

Conrail employees who are deprived of employment by an assumption or discontinuance of intercity passenger service by Amtrak shall be eligible for employee protection benefits under section 797 11 See References in Text note below. of this title, notwithstanding any other provision of law, agreement, or arrangement, and notwithstanding the inability of such employees otherwise to meet the eligibility requirements of such section. Such protection shall be the exclusive protection applicable to Conrail employees deprived of employment or adversely affected by any such assumption or discontinuance.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title XI, § 1165, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 686; Pub. L. 97–468, title V, § 505(a), Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2553.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 797 of this title, referred to in subsec. (b), was repealed by Pub. L. 99–509, title IV, § 4024(c), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1904, effective on the sale date (Apr. 2, 1987).

Codification

“August 13, 1981”, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original “the date of the enactment”, which was editorially translated as the date of the enactment of this section, as the probable intent of Congress.

Amendments

1983—Pub. L. 97–468, § 505(a), designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesConrail Employees Eligible for Employee Protection Benefits Under Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973

Pub. L. 97–377, title I, § 137, Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1915, provided that: “Conrail employees who are deprived of employment by assumption or discontinuance of intercity passenger service by Amtrak shall hereafter be eligible for employee protection benefits under section 701 of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (45 U.S.C. 797), notwithstanding any other provision of law, agreement, or arrangement, and notwithstanding the inability of such employees otherwise to meet the eligibility requirements of such section. Such protection shall be the exclusive protection applicable to Conrail employees deprived of employment or adversely affected by any such assumption or discontinuance.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1983–1986 · leading case: Engelhardt v. Consol. Rail Corp., 594 F. Supp. 1157 (N.D.N.Y. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Engelhardt v. Consol. Rail Corp., 594 F. Supp. 1157 (N.D.N.Y. 1984). “Although denominated a class action, plaintiffs have yet to seek class certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c).”

Famulare v. United Transp. Union Int'l, 639 F. Supp. 965 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). “See § 1165 of the Northeast Rail Service Act of 1981, 45 U.S.C. § 1113 . By statute, Amtrak was required to negotiate with the employer, Conrail, as well as with the employees whom Amtrak was directed to hire.”

United Transp. Union v. Metro-North (Commuter Rail Div. of Metro. Transp. Auth.), 554 F. Supp. 429 (Regl. Rail Reorg. Act 1983). · cites it 2× “Amtrak, Amtrak Commuter, and Conrail, and the employees with seniority in both freight and passenger service shall commence negotiations not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment for the right of such employees to move from one service to the other once each…”

United Transp. Union v. METRO-NORTH, ETC., 554 F. Supp. 429 (Regl. Rail Reorg. Act 1983). · cites it 2× “45 U.S.C. § 1113 (emphasis added). The basic difference between the above-cited statutory provisions relates to "flow-back" rights to be accorded an employee transferring to Metro-North.”

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.