45 U.S.C. § 158

Agreement to arbitrate; form and contents; signatures and acknowledgment; revocation

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

The agreement to arbitrate—(a) Shall be in writing;(b) Shall stipulate that the arbitration is had under the provisions of this chapter;(c) Shall state whether the board of arbitration is to consist of three or of six members;(d) Shall be signed by the duly accredited representatives of the carrier or carriers and the employees, parties respectively to the agreement to arbitrate, and shall be acknowledged by said parties before a notary public, the clerk of a district court or court of appeals of the United States, or before a member of the Mediation Board, and, when so acknowledged, shall be filed in the office of the Mediation Board;(e) Shall state specifically the questions to be submitted to the said board for decision; and that, in its award or awards, the said board shall confine itself strictly to decisions as to the questions so specifically submitted to it;(f) Shall provide that the questions, or any one or more of them, submitted by the parties to the board of arbitration may be withdrawn from arbitration on notice to that effect signed by the duly accredited representatives of all the parties and served on the board of arbitration;(g) Shall stipulate that the signatures of a majority of said board of arbitration affixed to their award shall be competent to constitute a valid and binding award;(h) Shall fix a period from the date of the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators necessary to complete the board (as provided for in the agreement) within which the said board shall commence its hearings;(i) Shall fix a period from the beginning of the hearings within which the said board shall make and file its award: Provided, That the parties may agree at any time upon an extension of this period;(j) Shall provide for the date from which the award shall become effective and shall fix the period during which the award shall continue in force;(k) Shall provide that the award of the board of arbitration and the evidence of the proceedings before the board relating thereto, when certified under the hands of at least a majority of the arbitrators, shall be filed in the clerk’s office of the district court of the United States for the district wherein the controversy arose or the arbitration was entered into, which district shall be designated in the agreement; and, when so filed, such award and proceedings shall constitute the full and complete record of the arbitration;(l) Shall provide that the award, when so filed, shall be final and conclusive upon the parties as to the facts determined by said award and as to the merits of the controversy decided;(m) Shall provide that any difference arising as to the meaning, or the application of the provisions, of an award made by a board of arbitration shall be referred back for a ruling to the same board, or, by agreement, to a subcommittee of such board; and that such ruling, when acknowledged in the same manner, and filed in the same district court clerk’s office, as the original award, shall be a part of and shall have the same force and effect as such original award; and(n) Shall provide that the respective parties to the award will each faithfully execute the same.

The said agreement to arbitrate, when properly signed and acknowledged as herein provided, shall not be revoked by a party to such agreement: Provided, however, That such agreement to arbitrate may at any time be revoked and canceled by the written agreement of both parties, signed by their duly accredited representatives, and (if no board of arbitration has yet been constituted under the agreement) delivered to the Mediation Board or any member thereof; or, if the board of arbitration has been constituted as provided by this chapter, delivered to such board of arbitration.

(May 20, 1926, ch. 347, § 8, 44 Stat. 584; June 21, 1934, ch. 691, § 7, 48 Stat. 1197; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 32(a), 62 Stat. 991; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 127, 63 Stat. 107.)Editorial NotesCodification

As originally enacted, par. (d) contained a reference to the “circuit court of appeals”. Act June 25, 1948, as amended by act May 24, 1949, substituted “court of appeals” for “circuit court of appeals”.

Amendments

1934—Act June 21, 1934, substituted “Mediation Board” for “Board of Mediation” wherever appearing.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 40 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1928–2023 · leading case: Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 26 F.2d 413 (7th Cir. 1928).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 26 F.2d 413 (7th Cir. 1928). · cites it 12× “" Equally well settled is the rule that one arbitrator or a minority of arbitrators cannot, after the dispute has been fully submitted to the Board, defeat an award by resigning, withdrawing, or otherwise refusing to participate in the hearings.”

Morton M. Hill, Jr. v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 814 F.2d 1192 (7th Cir. 1987). “The provision in question, 45 U.S.C. § 158 (i), applies to the ad hoc private arbitration authorized by 45 U.”

Order of R.R. Telegraphers v. Chicago & North W. Ry. Co., 362 U.S. 330 (1960). · cites it 2× “[8] 45 U. S. C. § 158 . [9] The Union's letter of July 10, 1958, after referring to the efforts of North Western to abolish many of the "one-man" agency jobs and to the Union's efforts in opposition, stated among other things: "However, it became evident at an early date that to…”

In Re Boston & Maine Corp., Debtor v. Ralph J. Moore, Jr., 776 F.2d 2 (1st Cir. 1985). “” The dissatisfied union members claimed, inter alia, that the agreement to arbitrate had not been executed by the proper UTU officials, as required by section 8 of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 158 , and that the UTU had violated its duty of fair representation.”

Krakowski v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (In re Amr Corp.), 598 B.R. 365 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019). “See 45 U.S.C. § 158 (k) - (l), 45. U.S.C. § 159, Second.”

Virginian Ry. Co. v. Sys. Fed'n No. 40, Etc., 84 F.2d 641 (4th Cir. 1936). · cites it 2× “584 , 45 U.S.C.A. § 158 (f). And the entire submission to arbitration may be revoked by agreement signed by their representatives.”

Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Toledo, Peoria & W. R.R., 321 U.S. 50 (1944). “45 U. S. C. § 158 (1), (m), (n), 44 Stat.”

Airline Pilots Ass'n v. Pan Am. Airways Corp., 405 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2005). “” 45 U.S.C. § 158 (m). Where an attempt to “enforce” an award generates or reveals a dispute requiring interpretation of the award’s scope or application, that dispute “must be referred to a reconvened board of arbitration for determination.”

Gibbons v. United Transp. Union, 462 F. Supp. 838 (N.D. Ill. 1978). · cites it 2× “§ 157 and Section 8 of the Act, 45 U.S.C. § 158 , specifically subsections b, d-k, m and n in rendering the Award.”

Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 230 F. Supp. 197 (E.D. Mo. 1964). · cites it 3× “Under 45 U.S.C.A. § 158 (m) these interpretations and applications will have the same force and effect as the original award when filed in the District Court of the District of Columbia.”

Musto v. Transp. Workers Union of Am., 818 F. Supp. 2d 621 (E.D.N.Y 2011). “Specifically, they argue that the Award simply cannot be interpreted to have returned plaintiffs to the Utility Man classification because such an interpretation (1) would violate the 1995 CBA (which did not include the Utility Man classification) and (2) would have exceeded the…”

Order of Ry. Conductors & Brakemen & Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Clinchfield R.R. Co., 407 F.2d 985 (6th Cir. 1969). “45 U.S.C. § 158 . The grounds upon which a district •court may properly impeach an arbitration award are enumerated in Section 9 Third of the Act.”

Show all 40 citing cases →

— 45 U.S.C. § 158(j) — 1 case

Bhd. of R.R. Trainmen v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 230 F. Supp. 197 (E.D. Mo. 1964). “Under 45 U.S.C.A. § 158 (m) these interpretations and applications will have the same force and effect as the original award when filed in the District Court of the District of Columbia.”

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.