|
|||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||
|
Public Law Boards - Hearings
Third Division, N.R.A.B. -Award 22373
Neutral: Benjamin Rubenstein
Parties: BRAC vs. Grand Trunk Western
Award Date: 1979-03-30 00:00:00
Synopsis: Involved case previously decided in Award No. 20826 in a dispute between BRAC and the GTW Railway. Action initiated in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, to have award "set aside and held null and void." Court remanded case to board for rehearing account the Board failed to provide the claimant with due notice of the hearing on his case. Although being given due notice of the rehearing, neither claimant nor his counsel appeared at the rehearing. In issuing its award, the Board noted that the District Court cited the Cole case as precedent, and went on to refute the Cole decision citing the O'Neill decision as more persuasive.
View Award
Other -Award
Neutral:
Parties: O'Neill vs. PLB No. 550
Award Date:
Synopsis: Decision by U.S. Court of Appeals, 7C (O'Neill vs. PLB No. 550)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago) held that an employees rights to due process were not violated when he was not personally given notice of hearings on his reinstatement case before a Public Law Board, nor given an opportunity to appear before the Board when a union has been authorized to represent him before such Boards and to receive any notices on his behalf.
Decision effectively refutes the previous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Cincinnati), August 19, 1976, Cole vs. Erie Lackawanna Railway Co., in which it was held that a Board must give due notice to the individual employee of hearings even though employee had authorized the union to represent him.
View Award
Other -Award
Neutral:
Parties: Cole vs. Erie Lackawanna Railway
Award Date:
Synopsis: Cole vs. Erie Lackawanna Railway, USCA 6C, No. 75-2065
On appeal, the Circuit Court finds that awards of PL Boards are subject to limited review by federal district court under Section 3, First (q) of Railway Labor Act in same manner as awards of National Railroad Adjustment Board even though such Section was not specifically incorporated in Section 3, Second of the Act.
Appeals court also affirms conclusion of District Court that employee involved in claim must be given formal notice of special adjustment board's initial consideration of his discharge grievance even though employee had authorized union to handle grievance.
Supreme Court allows decision of lower court stand on the question as presented: Did court of appeals err in holding that employee who has authorized his union to represent him before special board of adjustment may stand by with knowledge and notice of what is going on, allow matters to be resolved before board, and, after decision adverse to him has been rendered by board come in for first time to assert his individual rights?
View Award
Other -Award
Neutral:
Parties: USWA Local 1913 vs. Union Railroad
Award Date:
Synopsis: USWA Local 1913 vs. Union Railroad, USCA 3C (Philadelphia) No. 78-2069
On April 27, 1979, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Philadelphia) held, without reference to previous Cole and O'Neill cases, that an employee's right to notice was violated when neither he or his counsel that represented him before the district court were notified that Public Law Board No. 1782 was reconvening on remand to consider whether he had been denied right to counsel at original hearing of the Board.
View Award