45 U.S.C. § 156
Procedure in changing rates of pay, rules, and working conditions
Carriers and representatives of the employees shall give at least thirty days’ written notice of an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, and the time and place for the beginning of conference between the representatives of the parties interested in such intended changes shall be agreed upon within ten days after the receipt of said notice, and said time shall be within the thirty days provided in the notice. In every case where such notice of intended change has been given, or conferences are being held with reference thereto, or the services of the Mediation Board have been requested by either party, or said Board has proffered its services, rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon, as required by section 155 of this title, by the Mediation Board, unless a period of ten days has elapsed after termination of conferences without request for or proffer of the services of the Mediation Board.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 473
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1928–2023 · leading case: Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n, 491 U.S. 490 (1989).
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n, 491 U.S. 490 (1989). “*503 A P&LE submits that neither its decision to sell nor the impact that sale of the company might have had on its employees was a "change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions" (emphasis added) within the meaning of the RLA, 45 U. S. C. § 156 , and…”
Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R.R. Co., Interstate Com. Comm'n, Intervenor, 845 F.2d 420 (3rd Cir. 1988). “After successive expansions of the scope of the ICA, see, e.g., Transportation Act of 1920, ch.”
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 (1985). “On the day the plan was adopted, the Union filed suit against the airline claiming that the new retirement policy constituted a “major” change in the collective-bargaining agreement, and thus was barred by § 6 of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. § 156 . Nevertheless, TWA…”
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Indep. Fed'n of Flight Attendants, 489 U.S. 426 (1989). “(TWA), and the Independent Federation of Flight Attendants (IFFA or *429 Union) began negotiations pursuant to § 6 of the RLA, 45 U. S. C. § 156 , on a new collective bargaining agreement to replace their prior agreement due to expire on July 31, 1984.”
Douglas T. Wightman v. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. & United Transp. Union, 100 F.3d 228 (1st Cir. 1996). “Finally, BLE asserts, the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 156 , required UTU and ST to provide BLE, an interested party, notice of their contract negotiations and an opportunity to participate in them.”
Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R.R. v. United Transp. Union, 396 U.S. 142 (1969). “" 45 U. S. C. § 156 . The District Court dismissed the railroad's complaint, from which no appeal has been taken, but it granted the injunction sought by the union restraining the railroad from establishing any new outlying assignments at Trenton or elsewhere.”
United Transp. Union v. Gateway W. Ry. Co., 78 F.3d 1208 (7th Cir. 1996). “In December 1993, UTU served notice on GW under section 6 of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 156 , 2 that it was seeking changes in existing rates of pay, rules, and working conditions in connection with the negotiation of a new collective bargaining agreement.”
Order of R.R. Telegraphers v. Chicago & North W. Ry. Co., 362 U.S. 330 (1960). “A few weeks after the state proceedings were filed and before any decision had been made, the petitioner union, the duly recognized, certified and acting collective bargaining agent for the railroad's employees, notified the railroad under § 6 of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S.…”
Marlene Herrera v. Command Sec. Corp., 837 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2016). “§ 152 , First; and status quo violations under the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 156 . Aviation Safeguards moved for summary judgment, argiiing that the Union’s claims were barred by the RLA’s statute of limitations and that the allegations constituted a representation dispute under the RLA,…”
Csx Transp., Inc. v. United Transp. Union, 879 F.2d 990 (2d Cir. 1989). “§ 6, 45 U.S.C. § 156 (1982), of “an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions,” id.”
Bhd. of Ry. & S.S. Clerks v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 384 U.S. 238 (1966). “)); § 6 ( 45 U. S. C. § 156 (1964 ed.)). Here, bargaining was exhausted only on wages and notice of *249 layoffs and job abolition.”
Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc., 817 F.2d 510 (9th Cir. 1987). “Failure to State a Claim ALPA asserts that the portion of the complaint referring to the creation of a replacement subsidiary states a claim both with respect to the status quo requirements of the Act and with respect to the portions of the Act prohibiting the undermining of…”
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.