Central of Georgial Railway Co. v. United Transp. Union(s)

5 Citing cases

  1. Hendley v. Central of Georgia R. Co.

    609 F.2d 1146 (5th Cir. 1980)   Cited 34 times
    In Hendley, the plaintiff had presented evidence showing that the defendant had initiated disciplinary proceedings on false charges with the sole purpose of preventing employees from providing information in FELA actions. 609 F.2d at 1153.

    Id. § 153 First (i). An award of the adjustment board is final and binding on both parties, § 153 First (m), and the scope of judicial review of these awards is narrow. See Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. United Transportation Union, 353 F. Supp. 293, 302 (S.D.Ga. 1973) (range of judicial review is "among the narrowest known to the law;" awards are final in the absence of fraud or jurisdictional defects). Minor disputes are those disputes which concern the application or interpretation of existing collective bargaining contracts, while "major disputes" concern changes in rates of pay or working conditions where the method of change is not provided in the existing labor contract.

  2. La Societe Anonyme des Parfums v. Jean Patou

    495 F.2d 1265 (2d Cir. 1974)   Cited 217 times
    Holding that use of a trademark was not bona fide where its "real purpose" in making sales "was to establish and maintain rights in [its] trademark"

    Finally, the district court held that the pendency of legal proceedings since 1956 concerning the validity of Patou's SNOB mark constituted a valid defense to LeGalion's claim that Patou's use of the mark had been only token in nature. From the district court's judgment for defendants, 353 F.Supp. 293 (S.D.N.Y. 1972), plaintiff brought this appeal. I.

  3. Cusack v. Trans-Global Solutions, Inc.

    222 F. Supp. 2d 834 (S.D. Tex. 2002)   Cited 2 times
    In Cusack, this Court held that an employee who was discharged after he filed an informal complaint with the Federal Railroad Administration alleging non-compliance with safety regulations was entitled to protection under the Railway Labor Act, noting that "it is a well recognized principle in other areas of the law" that informal complaints can constitute protected activity.

    These exhibits would seem to show that Econo-Rail had legitimate reasons for firing Cusack. But it was within the NRAB's authority to believe Cusack and disbelieve all contrary witnesses and the Court has no power to substitute its judgment for that of the NRAB. Cent. of Georgia Ry. v. United Transp. Union, 353 F. Supp. 293 (S.D.Ga. 1973). Apparently also missing from the record is a letter from the FRA submitted to the NRAB by petitioner's counsel and a transcript of the oral presentation made by petitioner's counsel to the NRAB. Econo-Rail does not discuss how the omission of Cusack's evidence worked to the detriment of Econo-Rail.

  4. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Intern., v. Texas Intern. Air.

    567 F. Supp. 66 (S.D. Tex. 1983)   Cited 3 times

    Further, where third party interests are involved, the fact that the creating agreement fails to provide for notice to such interested third parties does not absolve the Board of its responsibility. Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. United Transportation Union, 353 F. Supp. 293 (S.D.Ga. 1973). By virtue of the above analysis, the same right to notice and a hearing applies to System Board proceedings under § 204, 45 U.S.C. § 184. Thus NYA and its pilots will not be prejudiced by their failure to be joined in this action.

  5. Hendley v. Central of Georgia R. Co.

    442 F. Supp. 482 (S.D. Ga. 1977)   Cited 3 times

    The range of judicial review of an award by such a board is a narrow one. See Central of Georgia Railway Company v. United Transportation Union[s], 353 F. Supp. 293, 302 (S.D., Ga.). The Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. § 151-163) contemplates and commands that the parties attempt to settle all minor disputes through grievance procedures, failing which either party has the right of recourse to compulsory arbitration by way of appeal to the National Railroad Adjustment Board.