WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS, United States District Judge
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration to alter or amend the judgment [DE 88]. The Court has carefully considered the motion and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
On August 15, 2002, this Court entered a final order vacating a Railway Labor Act arbitration proceedings for lack of adequate notice. The Court remanded the case back to the System Adjustment Board or arbitrator for a hearing with actual notice of the date, time and location of the hearing with a reasonable amount of time to prepare for such hearing, and to receive copies of all pre-hearing submissions to the Board or the arbitrator prior to the hearing.
Defendants now move for reconsideration, arguing that Plaintiffs in fact had actual notice of the pendency of the grievance which led to the arbitration decision at issue in this case and that posting notice of the hearing was legally sufficient.
While Defendants bring forth relevant evidence regarding Plaintiffs' knowledge of the pendency of the arbitration that was not before the Court upon its August 15, 2002 decision, nothing in the motion or voluminous attachments raises an issue that Plaintiffs did not receive adequate notice of the arbitration hearing under the circumstances of this case as described by the Court in its final decision. General knowledge or generalized notice of the pendency of a grievance affecting someone is insufficient notice under the particular facts of this case.
As to the legal standard for determining adequate notice, Defendants merely rely on Elgin, J. B. Ry. Co. v. Burley, 327 U.S. 661, 66 S.Ct. 721 (1946) without further comment, despite this Court's four page discussion of Elgin and several Circuit Court of Appeal cases far more recent than Elgin, and the Elgin court specifically stating that it was not deciding what adequate notice meant.
But we did not undertake to define what was meant by `due notice,' nor do we now. `Due notice' conceivably could be given or had in a variety of forms, more especially when account is taken of the generally informal procedure of the Board. It would require at the least, we think, knowledge on the aggrieved employee's part of the pendency of the proceedings or knowledge of such facts as would be sufficient to put him on notice of their pendency." Elgin, 327 U.S. 661, 667 n. 9, 66 S.Ct. 721, 724 n. 9 (1946).
Having reviewed Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration in its entirety, the Court concludes that there is no reason to alter its prior decision. Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration to alter or amend the judgment [DE 88] is hereby DENIED.