# Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 19, 1989 · 491 U.S. 299

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431756

## Case

- **Full name:** CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION v. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES’ ASSOCIATION Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 19, 1989
- **Citations:** 491 U.S. 299; 57 U.S.L.W. 4742; 131 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2601; 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 39,068; 109 S. Ct. 2477; 105 L. Ed. 2d 250; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 3000
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by White
- **Judges:** Blackmun, White, Brennan, Marshall
- **Cited by:** 578 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/9431756

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that the employer met its “relatively light burden” of convincing the Court that is practice was arguably justified by the implied terms of the collective bargaining agreement, but emphasizing that in rendering such a decision it did not “seek to minimize any force …
- holding that the The district courts have inclusion of drug testing as part of subject-matter railroad’s physical examinations jurisdiction to enjoin a arguably was justified by implied terms violation of the status of collective bargaining agreement, and quo pending completio…
- holding that the distinction between major and minor disputes turns not on a “case-by-case determination of the importance of the issue presented,” but on whether “the terms of an existing agreement either establish or refute the presence of a right to take the disputed action”
- holding that carrier’s unilateral implementation of a drug-screening policy was arguably justified because the carrier’s long-term practice of conducting physical examinations on employees established that practice as an implied term of the collective bargaining agreement
- holding that “Conrail’s authority to conduct physical examinations is an implied term of the collective-bargaining agreement, established by longstanding past practice,” because “Conrail routinely has required its employees to undergo physical examinations”

## Opinion text

Justice White,
concurring.
I join the opinion and judgment of the Court. I add these remarks only to emphasize that the parties agree and the courts below held that giving physical examinations is a matter covered by an implied agreement between Conrail and the Union. The company claims that although instituting drug testing is a change in conditions, the implied contract authorizes the change. I agree that this claim has substance and that the dispute is a minor one for the Adjustment Board to resolve. If the Board decides that the company is wrong about its authority under the contract, the *321 result will be that the company has sought a change in the contract without invoking the procedures applicable to major disputes.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431756. Public record. Not legal advice.