The disputes between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers by air growing out of grievances, or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, including cases pending and unadjusted on April 10, 1936 before the National Labor Relations Board, shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes; but, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to an appropriate adjustment board, as hereinafter provided, with a full statement of the facts and supporting data bearing upon the disputes.
It shall be the duty of every carrier and of its employees, acting through their representatives, selected in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, to establish a board of adjustment of jurisdiction not exceeding the jurisdiction which may be lawfully exercised by system, group, or regional boards of adjustment, under the authority of section 153 of this title.
Such boards of adjustment may be established by agreement between employees and carriers either on any individual carrier, or system, or group of carriers by air and any class or classes of its or their employees; or pending the establishment of a permanent National Board of Adjustment as hereinafter provided. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent said carriers by air, or any class or classes of their employees, both acting through their representatives selected in accordance with provisions of this subchapter, from mutually agreeing to the establishment of a National Board of Adjustment of temporary duration and of similarly limited jurisdiction.
Notes of Decisions
Jason Whitaker v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 285 F.3d 940 (11th Cir. 2002).
· cites it 12× “Railway Labor Act § 204, 45 U.S.C. § 184 (2001). 2 *943 In this case, the parties created the required board in Section 23 of the Agreement.”
Ballew v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc., 668 F.3d 777 (5th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 3× “The CBA provided that employees like Retirees must seek review of adverse benefit determinations through the Retirement Board, a properly established “System Board” under the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 184 . The Retirement Board is composed of four people, two appointed by Continental and…”
Hastings v. Wilson, 516 F.3d 1055 (8th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 3× “The district court 1 dismissed the action with respect to one of the pension plans, concluding that the Railway Labor Act’s (“RLA”) mandatory arbitration provision, 45 U.S.C. § 184 , divested federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Local Div. 732, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 667 F.2d 1327 (11th Cir. 1982).
· cites it 5× “In that case, a board of adjustment had been established by an agreement between Central Airlines and its employees’ union pursuant to section 204 of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 184 (1976), which provides in relevant part: It shall be the duty of every carrier and of its…”
McCoy v. Sw. Airlines Co., 211 F.R.D. 381 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
· cites it 2× “” 45 U.S.C. § 184 . These system boards “ ‘are the mandatory, exclusive, and comprehensive system for resolving grievance disputes.”
Arthur Geddes v. Am. Airlines, Inc., Terry Meenan, 321 F.3d 1349 (11th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “The district court denied Geddes’s motion, finding that the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”), 45 U.S.C. § 184 (1986), completely preempted the state tort claims, and it applied the RLA to dismiss -the complaint.”
Deba Edelman v. W. Airlines, Inc., 892 F.2d 839 (9th Cir. 1989).
· cites it 3× “Western argued that Edelman’s action was preempted by the Federal Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 184 and 153 First (q) (RLA).”
Jackson Transit Auth. v. Local Div. 1285, Amalgamated Transit Union, 457 U.S. 15 (1982).
· cites it 2× “682 (1963), the Court held that a union had a federal cause of action to enforce an award of an airline adjustment board included in a collective-bargaining contract pursuant to § 204 of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. § 184 (1958 ed.). Similarly, in Norfolk & Western R.”
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.