Lexplug logoLexplug

Singleton v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Supreme Court of the United States
58 L. Ed. 2d 354, 99 S. Ct. 399 (1978)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A federal court's authority to review a decision by the National Railroad Adjustment Board is strictly limited to the three statutory grounds specified in the Railway Labor Act: (1) failure to comply with the Act, (2) the Board acting outside its jurisdiction, or (3) fraud or corruption. A court cannot review the merits of the Board's decision, such as its interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement's time limits, if none of these grounds are met.


Facts:

  • Union Pacific Railroad Co. discharged its employee, Sheehan, for violating a company work rule.
  • Sheehan believed his discharge was wrongful.
  • The collective-bargaining agreement governing Sheehan's employment contained specific time limits for filing an appeal of a discharge.
  • Sheehan initially filed a lawsuit for wrongful discharge in a state court.
  • After a subsequent Supreme Court decision clarified that such disputes must be handled by the National Railroad Adjustment Board, Sheehan withdrew his state court action.
  • Sheehan then filed his claim with the Adjustment Board, but his filing occurred after the time limit prescribed by the collective-bargaining agreement had passed.

Procedural Posture:

  • Sheehan filed a wrongful discharge action against Union Pacific in a state court.
  • Following the Supreme Court's decision in Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., the parties stipulated to dismiss the state court action without prejudice.
  • Sheehan then instituted a proceeding before the National Railroad Adjustment Board.
  • The Adjustment Board dismissed Sheehan's claim for failure to file his appeal within the time limits prescribed by the collective-bargaining agreement.
  • Sheehan filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, seeking review of the Adjustment Board's order.
  • The District Court granted summary judgment to Union Pacific, affirming the Adjustment Board's decision.
  • Sheehan (as appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, with Union Pacific as appellee.
  • The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment and remanded the case to the Adjustment Board.
  • Union Pacific (as petitioner) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Railway Labor Act permit a federal court to review and overturn a decision by the National Railroad Adjustment Board on its merits, such as its rejection of an equitable tolling claim, when the decision does not fall within one of the three narrow statutory grounds for review?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. The Railway Labor Act does not permit a federal court to review the merits of a National Railroad Adjustment Board decision outside of the three narrow exceptions provided by statute. The court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing whether the Board failed to comply with the Act, failed to confine itself to its jurisdiction, or engaged in fraud or corruption. Here, the Adjustment Board acted within its jurisdiction when it interpreted the collective-bargaining agreement and determined that Sheehan's claim was untimely. The Board explicitly considered and rejected Sheehan's argument that the time limit should be equitably tolled due to his state-court filing. Characterizing the Board's decision as an error of law does not grant federal courts the authority to review it, as Congress intended for the Board's decisions on such 'minor' disputes to be final and binding to ensure stability and efficiency in railroad labor relations.



Analysis:

This decision powerfully reaffirms the finality of arbitration awards under the Railway Labor Act and underscores the extremely limited scope of judicial review. It clarifies that federal courts cannot engage in a merits-based review of National Railroad Adjustment Board decisions, even for what might be considered purely legal issues like equitable tolling. This precedent solidifies the Board's role as the exclusive and final arbiter of 'minor' disputes arising from collective bargaining agreements in the railroad industry, promoting a policy of strong judicial deference to specialized administrative tribunals.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Singleton v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1978) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Singleton v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue