U.S. Code » Title 49 » Subtitle SUBTITLE IV— INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION › Part PART A— RAIL › Chapter CHAPTER 113— FINANCE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— COMBINATIONS

49 U.S.C. § 11326

Employee protective arrangements in transactions involving rail carriers

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 49 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, when approval is sought for a transaction under sections 11324 and 11325 of this title, the Board shall require the rail carrier to provide a fair arrangement at least as protective of the interests of employees who are affected by the transaction as the terms imposed under section 5(2)(f) of the Interstate Commerce Act before February 5, 1976, and the terms established under section 24706(c) 11 See References in Text note below. of this title. Notwithstanding this part, the arrangement may be made by the rail carrier and the authorized representative of its employees. The arrangement and the order approving the transaction must require that the employees of the affected rail carrier will not be in a worse position related to their employment as a result of the transaction during the 4 years following the effective date of the final action of the Board (or if an employee was employed for a lesser period of time by the rail carrier before the action became effective, for that lesser period).(b) When approval is sought under sections 11324 and 11325 for a transaction involving one Class II and one or more Class III rail carriers, there shall be an arrangement as required under subsection (a) of this section, except that such arrangement shall be limited to one year of severance pay, which shall not exceed the amount of earnings from the railroad employment of that employee during the 12-month period immediately preceding the date on which the application for approval of such transaction is filed with the Board. The amount of such severance pay shall be reduced by the amount of earnings from railroad employment of that employee with the acquiring carrier during the 12-month period immediately following the effective date of the transaction. The parties may agree to terms other than as provided in this subsection.(c) When approval is sought under sections 11324 and 11325 for a transaction involving only Class III rail carriers, this section shall not apply.(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, § 102(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 842.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 5(2)(f) of the Interstate Commerce Act, referred to in subsec. (a), was classified to section 5(2)(f) of former Title 49, Transportation, prior to repeal and reenactment as section 11347 of this title by Pub. L. 95–473, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1439. Section 11347 of this title was subsequently omitted in the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a).

Section 24706(c) of this title, referred to in subsec. (a), was repealed by Pub. L. 105–134, title I, § 142(a), Dec. 2, 1997, 111 Stat. 2576.

Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 11347 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, § 102(a).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1996–2011 · leading case: Village of Barrington v. Surface Transportation Board
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Village of Barrington v. Surface Transportation Board (2011) cadc “But another provision of the Board’s organic statute, 49 U.S.C. § 11326 , which requires the Board to impose labor conditions on most mergers, including most “minor” ones, demonstrates that the Board’s conditioning authority can be broader than its approval authority.”
Hagerman v. United Transportation Union (2002) ca10 · cites it 3× “In accordance with its statutory obligation to safeguard the interests of railroad employees involved in a Board-approved transaction, 2 see 49 U.S.C. § 11326 , the Board imposed the New York Dock Conditions as a condition of the merger.”
Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (1998) vawd · cites it 5× “49 U.S.C. § 11326 (a). Accordingly, the STB routinely imposes the New York Dock employee protective conditions on approved transactions.”
Timothy W. Black and Thomas K. Sorge v. Surface Transportation Board and United States of America, Grand Trunk Western R (2007) ca6 · cites it 2× “§ 11347 (1979), revised and reco-dified at 49 U.S.C. § 11326 (requiring the ICC to impose conditions on any railroad merger to ensure that the employees are guaranteed certain benefits for at least four years after the merger).”
United Transportation Union v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (2008) ca9 “1156 ; see also 49 U.S.C. §§ 11326 (a) & 10502(g). The RLA, by contrast, aims “to encourage collective bargaining by rail *678 roads and their employees in order to prevent, if possible, wasteful strikes and interruptions of interstate commerce.”
Swonger v. Surface Transportation Board (2001) ca10 “” With that exemption comes a limitation: 49 U.S.C. § 11326 requires carriers participating in such a transaction to provide a “fair arrangement” for their employees.”
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Transportation-Communications International Union (2006) mdd · cites it 2× “The provisions contain both substantive and procedural requirements that railroads must meet to ensure that employees impacted by mergers and consolidations are protected.”
Csx Transportation, Incorporated v. Transportation Communications International Union United Transportation Union (2007) ca4 “at 348; 49 U.S.C. § 11326 . These protective conditions were outlined by the ICC in New York Dock Railway-Control Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal, 360 I.”
Union Pacific Railroad v. Surface Transportation Board (2004) cadc · cites it 2× “49 U.S.C. § 11326 (a). In *106 granting its 1988 approval for the merger of the Denver & Rio Grande and the Southern Pacific, the Board imposed its standard requirements, known as the New York Dock conditions.”
Csx Transportation, Incorporated v. United Transportation Union Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (1996) ca4 “§ 11347 (now recodified at 49 U.S.C. § 11326 ). New York Dock Railway-Control-Brooklyn Eastern Dist.”
United Transportation Union-Illinois Legislative Board v. Surface Transportation Board (1999) cadc “See 49 U.S.C. § 11326 (c). Finding that both CSS and CRL were Class III carriers, the Board concluded that, even if a court agreed with the UTU that the Board should have evaluated the transaction between CSS and the Port under § 11343 rather than under § 10901, “neither…”
Union Railroad v. United Steelworkers of America (2001) ca3 · cites it 3× “When the ICC authorized a merger, it was required by 49 U.S.C. § 11326 to impose labor protections for affected employees.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
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.