01-3204 T.V. Ryan, et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al.

By: dmc-admin//April 15, 2002//

Listen to this article

“[A] collective bargaining agreement designating a railroad union as the exclusive representative in grievance proceedings takes precedence over an informal custom inconsistent with that designation.”

“Should it make a difference that the railroad and the UTU did not enforce the exclusivity provision for some years after it was inserted into their collective bargaining agreement? We cannot see why. The failure to enforce a contractual term does not abrogate the term unless the conditions for a waiver or estoppel are established, and the plaintiffs have made no effort to do that. Anyway they are not arguing that the agreement was modified or that it should be interpreted to authorize a practice that had become customary though it was contrary to the language of the agreement; they can’t argue that to us, as we’re about to see.”

Affirmed as modified.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Guzman, J., Posner, J.

Select Region or Brand

Upcoming Event