Railway labor act was enacted into law in 1926 with the support of labor and management of railway industry. In 1936, it was expanded to the U.S airline industry. Presently, the act provides a balanced legal framework for the resolution of labor disputes in the two industries. The act also provides collective bargaining and contract administration for the employees (Leslie & American Bar Association, 1995).  The act had several purposes. First, it prevented the interpretation of rail services due to disputes arising from the employees, for instance, strikes. The law was also enacted to assist the employees organize their unions and give them a way of solving disputes, for example, grievances arising from poor working conditions. Railway labor act has been very vital in protecting the rights of the railway and airline employees.

One of the recent amendments to the act was in 2012 when President Obama signed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform of 2012. Under this amendment, there will be several changes in the law. For instance, during the union election, if there are more than two contestants and neither of the contestants receives majority votes, there will be a rerun of the election. The amendment also provides that the auditing of the unions’ books to be done after two years (Leslie & American Bar Association, 1995). 

One of the famous judicial interpretations and administerings of the law was during the case involving Transportation Union V. Long Island Rail Road. Co. In this case, the labor union sued the Long Island Rail Road. Co. The union was seeking a declaration judgment that the labor dispute was covered by the Act and not by Taylor Law (Leslie & American Bar Association, 1995).  In its ruling, the Federal District Court rejected the Railway argument that the application of the Railway Labor Act to a state-owned railway road was inconsistent. The court of appeal reversed the ruling holding that the operations of the railway were an integral state government function, and the Labor Act was displaced for essential government decisions.

Arbitration is the procedure where agreement between the parties solves disputes. One or more arbitrators have to make a binding decision on the dispute. Parties in this scenario opt for a private dispute resolution instead of the court proceedings (McIlwrath & Savage, 2010).  Parties normally choose this method because it is less costly and saves time as compared to the tedious court proceedings. The process also protects the reputation of an organization from bias reporting by the media. Arbitration can be useful in labor relations. For instance, when there is a labor crisis such as staff unrests where the employees are demanding for the increment of salary, the parties should come out and solve the crisis without even court proceedings. The parties can come out and make an agreement on how the crisis will be solved, for instance, increasing salaries in different phases.

Mediation is a dispute solving method where parties do not need to go to court. The dispute solving method normally has a third party who assists both parties to come out with an agreement. The third party commonly known as a mediator should be neutral and should not take any side. Mediation can be applied in dispute solving between the employees and employer. For instance, the two parties can choose a neutral party such as a religious organization to help them solve the dispute (McIlwrath, M., & Savage, 2010). 

In conclusion, the railway act has played a significant role in the labor relations in America. Through the act, the employees’ rights such as the right to strike have been protected. On the other hand arbitration and mediation have played a significant role in solving the employees’ disputes. The two methods are less costly and save time when solving the labor disputes.