This paper examines the legislative background and key provisions of the 1926 Railway Labor Act (RLA), tracing how labor unrest in the railroad industry prompted Congress to establish a federal framework for collective bargaining and dispute resolution. It explains the Act's four core components and the administrative machinery created, including the National Mediation Board. The paper then follows the extension of RLA protections to the airline industry in 1936, reviewing related legislation such as the Air Commerce Act of 1926, the Black-McKellar Act of 1934, and the Motor Carrier Act of 1935. Court interpretations of the term "carrier" and the President's emergency powers under the Act are also addressed.
The paper demonstrates effective use of statutory and secondary source synthesis. Rather than simply summarizing one source, it weaves together primary legal texts, a law school casebook, and a legal monograph to build a layered explanation of how the RLA evolved. This approach shows how to move between legislative intent, administrative mechanisms, and judicial interpretation within a single argument.
The paper opens with the economic and labor context that motivated the RLA, then breaks down its four core components and dispute-resolution machinery. It pivots to aviation history — beginning with early scheduled air service and mail legislation — before explaining how Congress extended RLA protections to airline workers in 1936. A section on judicial definition of "carrier" and presidential emergency powers rounds out the analysis before a brief conclusion.
The Act became law in 1926 because there was a need to keep "the American economy flowing without the disruption of railway labor disputes" (Bank, 2006). But the Act also related to protecting the rights of railway employees to join a union if they wished to. In fact, the Act has proven to be "one of the most crucial laws passed" in America's economic history (Bank, 2006). At the crux of the matter was the unionization of railway workers, but the Act became a model for other industries where union activities were taking place.
In the book Airline Labor Law: The Railway Labor Act and Aviation After Deregulation, author William E. Thoms, a law professor, writes that the Act was passed ten years before the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Railway Labor Act reflected a "pioneer federal attempt to secure the peaceful settlement" of disputes between employers and employees (Thoms, 1990). In the years before 1926 there had been strikes and lockouts, and other "disruptive forms of self-help." Because the railways were "far and away the primary carriers of goods and passengers," it was vital to address those workers' issues. Interstate commerce would be — and was — impacted negatively when there were work stoppages or violence connected with workers' attempts to join unions (Thoms, p. 4).
Thoms explains that Congress believed the main reason for disruptive strikes was the "failure" of workers and management to agree on contracts that were "fair to labor and management alike" (p. 4). The courts, moreover, were not equipped with the expert knowledge of labor dynamics needed to help parties reach reasonable settlements. The Railway Labor Act therefore established what rights workers had in terms of organizing and joining unions, what rights management held, and precisely what "administrative machinery" was to be put in place to help with the selection of representatives for bargaining procedures.
The basic provisions of the Act can be broken down into four components: (a) to try and avoid "interruption to commerce"; (b) to make it legal for employees to freely join a labor union; (c) to provide "complete independence of organizations by both parties" to carry out the purposes of the RLA; and (d) to provide a mechanism for the settlement of disputes, whether minor or major (Thoms, p. 5).
The operative concept in the Act is collective bargaining. For minor disputes within the context of collective bargaining, strikes were illegal; the Act called for mediation under the National Railroad Adjustment Board. For major disputes, the Act created the National Mediation Board (NMB), an independent agency appointed by the President of the United States.
There were of course trains well before there were airline companies, but after Charles Lindbergh flew his transatlantic journey to Europe, a great deal more interest was focused on the potential for commercial air transportation. The very first scheduled airline service was launched in 1919 (the Tampa–St. Petersburg Airline), and it was clear that air travel would become a major part of transportation in America and that it needed to be regulated by the federal government (Thoms, p. 7).
In terms of regulating the airlines, first there was the Air Mail Act of 1925, which allowed the U.S. Postmaster General to award contracts to airlines delivering mail in the United States. The Air Commerce Act of 1926 "vested jurisdiction over safety and maintenance of airways and navigation facilities" in the Department of Commerce (Thoms, p. 7). In 1938 the Civil Aeronautics Authority was created and given regulatory authority over the airlines. Two years before that authority was created, however, Congress in 1936 extended the exact "provisions of the Railway Labor Act" to also provide coverage for workers in the airline industry (Thoms, p. 9).
After ten years of success with the Railway Labor Act as applied to railroad companies, unions, and workers, Congress concluded that workers in the airline industry also needed federal protection through statutes allowing collective bargaining. Thoms notes that "many of the same unions active in the railroad industry" became involved in organizing airline employees (p. 10). The need for legislative and executive authority to keep commerce moving throughout the United States was even more pronounced during the Great Depression, when transportation remained among the industries most vital to the country's economic health (Thoms, p. 8).
In 1934 the Black-McKellar Act established the framework for regulating airlines — not merely to ensure fairness during labor disputes — through the Federal Aviation Commission. Thoms identifies two "fundamental ingredients" in that legislation. First, there were "certain minimum standards of equipment, operating methods, and personal qualifications" that had to be met. Second, when any "irresponsible, unfair, or excessive competition" emerged in the airline industry, the Black-McKellar Act would come into play.
Congressman Randolph had no objection to open and fair competition, but he asserted that "unbridled and unregulated competition is a public menace." He was alluding to "rate wars and cutthroat devices" as detrimental to the public — hence the need for regulation (Thoms, pp. 8–9).
How was a "carrier" defined by the courts? In the litigation Bullock v. Capital Airways (1959), District Judge Zavatt ruled that the following should be considered "carriers":
"…every common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, and every carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the United States Government, and every air pilot or other person who performs any work as an employee or subordinate official of such carrier or carriers, subject to its or their continuing authority to supervise and direct the manner of rendition of his service…" (Thoms, p. 10).
The full text of the Act itself defines "carrier" as any company that directly or indirectly is controlled or owned by any carrier by railroad — or which "operates any equipment or facilities or performs any service" (not including trucking) that is linked to transportation through "receipt, delivery, elevation, refrigeration, storage…" (The Railway Labor Act, 1926).
In addition, the Motor Carrier Act was passed in 1935, which allowed the federal government to regulate rates and rules for new entrants and placed the responsibility for carrying out the law with the Interstate Commerce Commission, which "already held extensive regulatory authority over rail carriers" (Thoms, p. 8).
It is also important to note that the President of the United States holds "extensive emergency powers" granted by the Railway Labor Act in the case of a labor dispute (Larsen et al., 2012). Moreover, when a labor dispute has the potential to "disrupt interstate commerce," the President can appoint an "emergency board of impartial people" to investigate the dispute, develop a solution, and submit that solution to the President (Larsen et al., p. 1251).
Thoms, W. E., and Dooley, F. J. (1990). Airline Labor Law: The Railway Labor Act and Aviation After Deregulation. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Group.
You’re 89% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.