<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=PHNlYXJjaD48cGFyYW1zPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJkYXRlaW4iIHZhbHVlPSJhbGwiIC8+PHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9InN1YmplY3Rsb2dpYyIgdmFsdWU9Im9yIiAvPjxwYXJhbSBuYW1lPSJ0ZXJtc2xvZ2ljIiB2YWx1ZT0ib3IiIC8+PHBhcmFtIG5hbWU9ImxvY2F0aW9uIiB2YWx1ZT0iMCIgLz48L3BhcmFtcz48ZmlsdGVycz48ZmlsdGVyIGZpZWxkPSJpbmRleHRlcm1zIiB2YWx1ZT0iJnF1b3Q7UmFpbHdheSBMYWJvciBBY3QmcXVvdDsiIG9yaWdpbmFsX3ZhbHVlPSImcXVvdDtSYWlsd2F5IExhYm9yIEFjdCZxdW90OyIgLz48L2ZpbHRlcnM+PHJhbmdlcyAvPjxzb3J0cz48c29ydCBmaWVsZD0icHVibGlzaGVkIiBvcmRlcj0iZGVzYyIgLz48L3NvcnRzPjxwZXJzaXN0cz48cGVyc2lzdCBuYW1lPSJyYW5nZXR5cGUiIHZhbHVlPSJwdWJsaXNoZWRkYXRlIiAvPjwvcGVyc2lzdHM+PC9zZWFyY2g+" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>An Overview of the Railway Labor Act's Negotiation Procedures</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1969825</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objectives of the report are to provide a general overview of the institutional factors affecting rail labor negotiations and identify issues central to rail labor negotiations in 1988.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2022 11:04:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1969825</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The NMB Election Rule Change of 2010 Revisited: What Difference Has It Made?</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1502367</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article explores the changes that occurred after the 2010 passage by the National Mediation Board (NMB) of the Railway Labor Act representation election procedures.  This decision changed a long-standing practice of certifying a union as representative only if a majority of eligible employees in the relevant craft or class voted for representation.  The new rule meant that the NMB would decide an election’s outcome based on the majority of valid ballots cast.  The author uses empirical NMB election data to determine the impact of this rule change. Topics include union win rates, the level of employee participation in elections, and the incidence of “raids” on incumbent unions.  The author focuses on the consequences of the rule change in the airline industry, where the union win rate has increased substantially.  Another point of discussion is concerns by critics that the rule change would result in low participation rates and destabilizing effects on labor relations.  The author also notes that the decertification procedure increased with the rule change, which partially offset the rule’s effects in the railroad industry.  A final section anticipates the impact of further rule changes when the political situation changes.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2018 09:32:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1502367</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Investors’ Expectations Regarding the Railway Labor Act</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1483004</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article considers how investors reacted to the passage of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), originally passed in 1926 and amended in 1934.  The RLA was supported by both unions and employers when it was first passed, but the 1934 amendments were strongly opposed by employers.  The author begins with a brief synopsis of the history of labor relations in the railway industry, then describes the main provisions of the RLA.  The RLA was designed to provide labor peace within the railway industry, in no small part by encouraging employers and unions to rely on collective bargaining. The author then reports the findings of a methodical study of the impact of the law's passage on the shareholder returns to the firms likely to have been affected by the law. The results showed that shareholder returns rose in response to the 1926 law's passage, indicating that investors expected the law to benefit firms, perhaps by stabilizing labor-management relations.  However, the 1934 amendment, which enhanced unions’ organizing abilities, was met with negative reaction from investors.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:20:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1483004</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Collective Bargaining in the Freight Rail Industry</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1411952</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This document looks at the Railway Labor Act, railroad unions, and how contract negotiations are handled in the U.S. freight rail industry.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:41:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1411952</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Effects on Voter Participation and Unionization Activity from Changes in Railway Labor Act Election Rules</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1336980</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In 2010 the National Mediation Board changed the process by which airline and railroad employees certify a union. To install a collective bargaining entity, new election rules require that the majority of ballots cast be in favor of unionization. This procedure differed from the previous one, which required the majority of a craft or class of laborers to vote in favor of unionization. This study investigated the effects of the voting change on unionization and voter participation for industries covered under the Railway Labor Act. Data from airline- and railroad-related union elections were mined before and after the procedural change and analyzed. Chi-square analysis revealed no significant change in union certification efforts. The t-test results indicated a significant increase in voter participation in Railway Labor Act elections under the new election rules (p < .001).]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:04:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1336980</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Employer Bashing on Social Media in the Railroad Workplace: When is it Protected?</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1225385</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The emergence of popular communications platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube have benefits to individuals and businesses alike. Social media, or social networking, has also created complexities for businesses, such as when employees air their workplace grievances on their personal social media pages. Since this is a relatively new phenomenon, the law is still developing and there have been very few cases adjudicated in courts. However, a recent series of reports issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) discuss cases where this issue has arisen. This article analyzes the NLRB findings and considers them in the context of the Railway Labor Act.  The article provides information regarding what actions employers may take, if any, in response to employee activities conducted on social media. It also discusses whether and to what extent a railroad employer can prohibit employees from conducting certain activities on social media.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:25:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1225385</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>"Count Me Out": Ramifications of Altering the Method for Determining Representation Election Outcomes Under the Railway Labor Act</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1102401</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This paper examines the effects of revising the National Mediation Board's (NMB) representation election rules. It briefly examines the history of the NMB's procedures and the proposal for new procedures. It then estimates the likely effects of changing the rules on union win rates in Railway Labor Act (RLA) elections. It also considers broader ramifications of the new rule and concludes that the proposed change will lead to a substantial increase in union win rates in elections under the RLA. NMB rules, and perhaps the RLA itself, are likely to be more subject to future contest and change.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 10:51:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1102401</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Airline Labor Law in the Era of Globalization: The Need to Correct a Misreading of the Railway Labor Act</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/913113</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The author of this article (Paragraph No. 30,011) notes that a number of serious initiatives have been undertaken in recent years to liberalize the regulatory regime that applies to international air transport services.  These include the "Open Skies" initiative of the U.S., the multilateral air transport services agreement reached by several members of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, the proposal of the European Commission to establish a common aviation area between the European Union the the U.S., the efforts of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development to develop model regulatory frameworks for international air cargo services, and the continued consideration by the World Trade Organization of applying the General agreement on Trade in Services to air traffic rights.  All of these initiatives do or would provide U.S. air carriers greater opportunities to expand their overseas operations.  According to the author, however, these initiatives have not addressed the effect of the proposed regulatory changes on the airline employees who work on board aircraft engaged in international operations.  The article examines one of the shortcomings of the Railway Labor Act that already has been exposed by the existing international operations of U.S. airlines - the fact that the RLA has been interpreted not to apply to foreign-based flight crew members of U.S. carriers.  The author argues that this interpretation is a misreading of the statute, contrary to its purpose and to the intent of the Congress that enacted it.  The RLA, like the National Labor Relations Act, should apply to all operations of U.S. flag carriers, regardless of where they are located.  The author also briefly  notes some of the other labor law issues raised by the globalization initiatives.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:59:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/913113</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RLA Bargaining Dilemma: Do Courts Really Follow Williams?</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/837054</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The author examines the 1942 Supreme Court decision in "Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal Co." and the reluctance of many courts to change any facet of its holdings. Exceptions to Williams, however, have been created by several courts based on carrier interference or where there has been some initial bargaining. In light of the "N.L.R.B. v. Katz" decision under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Williams rule exceptions appear logical since unilateral changes were found to be per se violations of the duty to bargain. The author argues that no justifiable reason for the two acts to differ on this issue is apparent, and that an employer could immediately slash employee rights, benefits, and wages in order to oust the union post-certification under either act. In its efforts to maintain its presence with the employer, the union is at a distinct disadvantage without some court protection from these unilateral changes. Where remedies have been awarded prior to the reaching of a collective-bargaining agreement to unions against carriers there have been some inroads, although Williams has somewhat handcuffed the courts. However, until this issue is revisited by the Supreme Court, unions under the Railway Labor Act, in comparison to those under the NLRA, remain extremely vulnerable.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:26:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/837054</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RLA or NLRA? FedEx &amp; UPS Follow the Money Trail</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/838609</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The focus of the article is on comparison of how the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which is distinctly different from the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), applies to ground service employees of two Federal Express (FedEx) concerns: FedEx Ground, which uses a trucking company for small package delivery, and Fedex Express, an aircraft dependent overnight delivery system for time-sensitive goods. Two federal agencies, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and National Mediation Board (NMB), determine whether the RLA or NLRA govern an employer's labor relations. The author provides background on FedEx operations, as well as those of the United Parcel Service (UPS), and their interactions with the NMB and NLRB.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:26:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/838609</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Judicial Review Under the Railway Labor Act: Are Due Process Claims Permissible?</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/806120</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The authors discuss the arbitration process surrounding the Railway Labor Act (RLA), enacted in 1926 for dispute resolution between airline and railroad industry management and organized labor. They review the Supreme Court cases leading to the 2004 "Kinross v. Utah Railway Co." decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and, in the RLA context, the authority split among circuits on judicial review of due process claims. This issue came about after Congress tried to use the RLA statutory arbitration scheme to resolve labor disputes. The authors argue that the Tenth Circuit, when it held, in Kinross, that due process review is impermissible, was consistent with Supreme Court holding and congressional intent. The authors also conclude, after analysis of the RLA arbitration process, that there are sufficient procedural safeguards within the system to protect individual due process rights, thereby rendering unnecessary independent due process judicial review challenges.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:48:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/806120</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AIRLINE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: REFORM OR REFRAME?</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/663033</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The airline industry is facing $30 billion in losses since September 11, 2001, and more than $10 billion in losses is estimated for 2003.  The paper identifies some of the causes for this economic downward spiral, such as the obvious impact of 9/11, the continuing threat of terrorism, the war in Iraq, the downturn in economy, the easy access to Internet pricing, and the unwillingness of business travelers to pay premium prices. The role of government in the airline crisis is seen in two extreme views: one, that Congress should do nothing and let the market take its course, including liquidation; and the opposite view that it is time for the government to save the industry, financially and otherwise.  Also reviewed is the Railway Labor Act of 1926 which was amended in 1936 to cover the airlines, the possible impact of emergency boards and interest arbitration. legislative scope clauses and collective bargaining.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/663033</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING -- A SURVEY OF LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/686818</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Congress enacted the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 directing drug and alcohol testing for employees of transportation companies and agencies engaged in "safety sensitive functions."  Some of the carriers are unionized and must comply with the requirements of either the National Labor Relations Act or the Railroad Labor Act.  These laws prescribe bargaining requirements for employers.  What happens when there is an intersection of the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, the National Labor Relations Act, or the Railroad Labor Act?  This report examines the relationship between these laws, as well as the impact that intersections have had on existing collective bargaining agreements.  This report should be helpful to attorneys, human resources officials, administrators, and labor relations specialists.  The contents of this report are organized as follows:  Notice Regarding Revisions to 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40; (I) Introduction: (A) Legality Issues Concerning the Department of Transportation's Mandatory Drug and Alcohol Testing Requirements; (B) The Labor Laws and a Carrier's Duty to Bargain; (C) Carrier Survey; (D) Omnibus Employee Testing Act and Implementing Modal Regulations; (E) Relationship with State Testing Requirements; (F) Overview of Other Federal Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Governing Drug and Alcohol Use and Testing; and (II) Conclusion.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2001 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/686818</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>REVIEW OF LABOR LAW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRIES</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/686455</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The article reviews the major, recent issues and case law in the areas of air, rail, trucking, and maritime labor law.  These issues include collective bargaining agreements between rail carriers and the rail brotherhoods and between various airlines and one or more of the labor organizations representing major groups of employees; alternatives to a full fledged strike developed by labor organizations in the airline industry; a dispute over the statutory border between the Railway Labor Act and the National Labor Relations Act and their applicability in situations when employees are involved in jobs that overlap into both the trucking and airline industries; the trucking industries involvement in the election process within the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT); and the efforts of the IBT and International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) to organize grayaged drivers servicing dock areas in the maritime industry.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/686455</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION/SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD AS REGULATOR OF LABOR'S RIGHTS AND DEREGULATOR OF RAILROADS' OBLIGATIONS: THE CONTRIVED COLLISION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT WITH THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/576742</link>
      <description><![CDATA[For almost a century the predecessor the Surface Transportation Board, the Interstate Commerce Commission ["STB" and "ICC"], regulated the financial and economic aspects of the railroad industry. For most of the latter half of that century, when the ICC approved railroad for financial transactions (mergers, stock controls, purchases of railroad assets, leases, trackage rights agreements), it imposed upon individual railroads seeking that approval conditions for the protection of the interests of their employees which the approval might affect. Then in late 1983, without benefit of legislative or judicial sanction, the Commission reversed course and began to protect the interests of the railroads against those of their employees, whether the employees' interests were protected by contract or by the Railway Labor Act. The ICC simply injected itself directly into the relationship between management and labor to the benefit of the former and to the decided detriment of the employee interests it was mandated to protect.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/576742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>