The judicial scope of review of Board decisions "is one of the narrowest known to the law." International Assoc. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. National Mediation Bd., 930 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 858, 112 S.Ct. 173, 116 L.Ed.2d 136 (1991) citing Local 808, Bldg. Maintenance Serv. and R.R. Workers v. National Mediation Bd., 888 F.2d 1428, 1433 (D.C. Cir. 1989). Thus, the Court will interfere with the Board's efforts only upon a showing of "patent official bad faith."

The NMB is free to "experiment with any mediation device that can fairly be said to be designed to settle a dispute without a strike and does not independently offend other laws." Int'l Ass'n of Machinists v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 930 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Any party to a dispute may invoke the NMB when the dispute concerns changes in rates of pay, rules or working conditions; the NMB may also proffer its services without a request from a party.

Pl.'s Mot. at 4. The NMB's power to hold the parties in mediation is an important tool to bringing the parties to conciliation. Local 808, 888 F.2d at 1438; Int'l Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 930 F.2d 45, 49 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (" IAM 2") (stating that "the Board is entitled to use time alone to wear down an obdurate bargainer"). Indeed, the Railway Labor Act does not have any express time limit on mediation and its "procedures are purposely long and drawn out."

The Railway Labor Act provides a detailed framework to facilitate the voluntary settlement of major disputes. Int'l Ass'n of Machinists Aerospace Workers v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 930 F.2d 45, 46 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). Either party proposing changes to an existing collective bargaining agreement must give the other party advanced, written notice of its proposals.

This Court thus would have had no warrant to review a decision by NMB to make one more mediation attempt through the holiday season, or (more tellingly) even to question an NMB demand that the parties agree to a Presidential Emergency Board as a condition of their release from mediation. International Ass'n of Machinists Aerospace Workers v. National Mediation Bd. (Machinists II), 930 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Neither of those things happened in this case, but it will be remembered that the NMB announced its intention to recommend an emergency board on November 19, 2001, the day that it announced that the parties would be released from mediation effective November 21, 2001. It is possible that the NMB calculated that the threat of a Presidential Emergency Board might bring about a settlement during the cooling off period.

See 45 U.S.C. § 152 Ninth; Switchmen's Union of North America v. NMB, 320 U.S. 297, 305, 64 S.Ct. 95, 99, 88 L.Ed. 61 (1943). Indeed, the NMB's authority is so extensive that the federal judiciary is virtually forbidden to review Board determinations. Id.; International Ass'n of Machinists Aerospace Workers v. NMB, 930 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 173, 116 L.Ed.2d 136 (1991). But the interpretation and enforcement of collective bargaining disputes (so called minor disputes) under the RLA follow a different route.

The Union's assertion that the Carrier's refusal to meet directly while the Board had suspended mediation meetings violated Section 2, First of the RLA, therefore, relieving the union of its status quo obligation, is contrary to well established precedent that NMB has exclusive jurisdiction over the conduct of mediation in the crucial railroad industry. See International Ass'n of Machinists v. National Mediation Bd., 930 F.2d 45, 48 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Judicial review of the Board's decisions is `one of the narrowest known to the law.' International Ass'n of Machinists v. National Mediation Bd., 839 F.2d 809, 811 (D.C. Cir. 1988), amended, 848 F.2d 232 (D.C. Cir. 1988), cited in International Ass'n of Machinists v. National Mediation Bd., 180 F. Supp. 2d 188, 190 (D.D.C. 2002) (denying plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction).

The NMB's power to hold a dispute in mediation "is the key to the structure Congress established for bringing about settlements without industrial strife." Local 808, 888 F.2d at 1432; see International Ass'n of Machinists Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 930 F.2d 45, 47 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ("[T]he real `key' is the Board's authority to hold the parties to a dispute in mediation so they cannot engage in self-help; it is `a coercive tool essential to bringing the parties to conciliation.'") (quoting Local 808, 888 F.2d at 1432, 1438); see also American Train Dispatchers Dep't v. Forth Smith R.R. Co., 121 F.3d 267, 271 (7th Cir. 1997) (describing the NMB's "ability to force continuing negotiations almost interminably" as its "primary resource"). Courts have recognized this vital role for the NMB by refusing to review the Board's decision to keep a dispute in mediation "[a]bsent a showing of patent official bad faith."