had selected a certified union representative and requested a conference with the railroad to negotiate an agreement, the RLA prohibited the railroad from unilaterally imposing a wage plan that would make tips earned by railroad porters a component of their wages. See 315 U.S. at 401-02, 62 S.Ct. 659. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the “institution of negotiations for collective bargaining does not change the authority of the carrier” to alter working conditions. Id. at 402, 62 S.Ct. 659. The Supreme Court explained that the RLA’s status quo provisions set forth in section 6 and section 2, Seventh “are aimed at preventing changes in conditions previously fixed by collective bargaining agreements.” Id. at 403, 62 S.Ct. 659; see also id. at 400, 62 S.Ct. 659 (<HOLDING>). Further, Williams rejected the union’s
holding that the claim accrued after the employer denied a request for arbitration as untimely under the collective bargaining agreement holding that collective bargaining agreements cannot compel the arbitration of statutory rights holding section 6 is phrased so as to leave no doubt that only agreements  reached after collective bargaining are covered by the status quo requirements holding that agreements other than fullfledged collective bargaining agreements may be contracts within the meaning of  301 holding that where a collective bargaining agreements terms are clear but the management has engaged in contrary practice for a number of years the words of the agreement must be enforced