# Railway Labor Executives' Association v. National Mediation Board

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · April 5, 1985 · 757 F.2d 1342

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/449640

## Case

- **Full name:** RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES’ ASSOCIATION, Appellant v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** April 5, 1985
- **Citations:** 757 F.2d 1342; 244 U.S. App. D.C. 347; 118 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3435; 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 28742
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Bork, Davis, Per Curiam, Wald
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/449640

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding it within the Board’s discretion to discontinue funding of office space for the National Railroad Adjustment Board despite the fact that such office space had been funded for nearly 50 years

## Opinion text

Opinion PER CURIAM.
PER CURIAM:
The Railway Labor Executives’ Association appeals the judgment of the district
*1343
court denying the Association injunctive relief and granting summary judgment to the National Mediation Board and the General Services Administration. The Association argues that subsections 3 First (s) and 3 First (t) of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (s)-(t), when interpreted in light of the National Mediation Board’s historic practice and other provisions of that Act, require the National Mediation Board to make private offices at government expense available to labor members of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. Having carefully considered the briefs and presentations at oral argument, we find that the Railway Labor Act does not impose any such obligation for the reasons set forth in the thorough opinion of-the district court, which is reported at 583 F.Supp. 279 (D.D.C.1984) (Parker, J.). The judgment of the district court is accordingly-
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/449640. Public record. Not legal advice.