Wright v. SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 91, ETC.

• Decision Date: 07 August 1958
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 942.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
• Parties: O. V. WRIGHT et al., Plaintiffs, v. SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 91, RAILWAY EMPLOYEES' DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO, et al., Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, Defendants.

165 F. Supp. 443

O. V. WRIGHT et al., Plaintiffs, v. SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 91, RAILWAY EMPLOYEES' DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO, et al., Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 942.

United States District Court W. D. Kentucky, Louisville Division.

August 7, 1958.

Marshall P. Eldred, Brown & Eldred, Louisville, Ky., for plaintiffs.

Robert E. Hogan, Louisville, Ky., Mulholland, Robie & Hickey, Toledo, Ohio, Schoene & Kramer, Washington, D. C., for movant defendants System Federation No. 91, etc., et al.

Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, Louisville, Ky., H. G. Breetz, Louisville, Ky., for defendant Louisville & N. R. Co.

SHELBOURNE, Chief Judge.

In July, 1945, twenty-eight non-union employees of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, for themselves and representing all non-union employees upon the Louisville & Nashville System, instituted an action against that railroad company and certain shop craft unions, seeking a declaration of rights and an injunction.

The plaintiffs alleged that the railroad and the unions had discriminated against the class of employees represented by plaintiffs in granting promotions, overtime work, and other privileges and benefits and had, in violation of plaintiffs' seniority rights, preferred members of the unions in their employment relationship because the plaintiffs and the class represented by them had refused to join or maintain membership in the unions.

That proceeding in this Court culminated, on December 7, 1945, in the entry of a judgment "by consent and agreement of all the parties." That judgment is as follows:

"By consent and agreement of all the parties to this action, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows:

"That the defendants, other than the defendant Railroad, and all of the subordinate lodges and locals of the defendant Unions, acting as the duly designated and authorized representatives of any employes of defendant Railroad, are, in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act and in accordance with the duly adopted bargaining agreements between the defendant Railroad and defendant Unions, under the obligation and duty to represent and treat fairly and impartially, and without discrimination based on membership or non-membership in any labor organization, all members of the crafts or classes of boilermakers, machinists, carmen, sheet metal workers, electricians, power house employes and railway shop laborers, including plaintiffs to this action, without regard to whether said employes, or any of them, are members of or join or retain their membership in any of said defendant labor organizations, or in any labor organization;

"That the defendant Railroad, in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act and in accordance with the duly adopted bargaining agreements between the said Railroad and the defendant Unions, is under the duty and obligation to refrain from discrimination against its employes in the crafts or classes of boilermakers, machinists, carmen, sheetmetal workers, electricians, power house employes and railway shop laborers, including the plaintiffs in this action, because of or by reason of the failure or refusal of said employes to join or retain their membership in any of the defendant labor organizations, or in any labor organization;

"That the plaintiffs in this action and all other employes of the defendant Railroad, employed in the boilermakers, machinists, carmen, sheet metal workers, electricians, power house employes and railway shop laborers crafts or classes, who are not members of the defendant labor organizations, or any subordinate lodge or local thereof, shall from and after the date hereof and in accordance with the collective bargaining agreements, be entitled, irrespective and without regard to whether said employes, or any of them, are members of or join or retain their membership in any of said defendant labor organizations, or in any labor organization, to the rights of promotion to preferred jobs, to jobs in a higher classification paying a higher rate of pay, to proper protection of seniority, to bid on or be assigned to vacancies, to leaves of absence with proper protection of seniority and to their proper share of overtime work and compensation therefor, as provided for in such agreements now in effect or that may hereafter be in effect in accordance with the Railway Labor Act;

"That all of the defendants, and all of the subordinate lodges and locals of the defendant Unions acting as the duly and authorized representatives of any employes of defendant Railroad, their officers, agents, employes and members, and the defendant Railroad, be and they are hereby enjoined from requiring that the plaintiffs and the classes represented by them in this action join or retain their membership in any of said defendant labor organizations, or any labor organization, as a condition to receiving promotion, leaves of absence, proper protection of seniority, overtime work and any other rights or benefits which may arise out of or be in accordance with the regularly adopted bargaining agreements in effect between the defendant Railroad and the defendant Unions, or that may hereafter be in effect between the defendant Railroad and the defendant Unions in accordance with the Railway Labor Act; and are enjoined from denying to said plaintiffs, or the classes represented by them in this action, promotion to such preferred jobs, jobs in a higher classification with a higher rate of pay, leaves of absence, proper protection of seniority, overtime work or any other right or benefit arising out of or in accordance with the regularly adopted bargaining agreements in effect between the defendant Railroad and the defendant Unions, or that may hereafter be in effect between the defendant Railroad and the defendant Unions in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, for the sole and only reason that the plaintiffs or classes represented by them in this action, are not members or refuse to join or to retain their membership in any of said defendant labor organizations, or any labor organization; and they are further enjoined, in the application of the provisions of the regularly adopted bargaining agreements in effect between the defendant Railroad and the defendant Unions, or that may hereafter be in effect between the defendant Railroad and the defendant Unions in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, from discriminating against the plaintiffs and the classes represented by them in this action by reason of or on account of the refusal of said employes to join or retain their membership in any of the defendant labor organizations, or any labor organization;

"That one-half the costs of this action be paid by defendant Railroad and the other half thereof be paid by the defendant Unions.

"The Court retains control of this action for the purpose of entering such further orders as may be deemed necessary or proper."

In the case of System Federation No. 91 v. Reed, 180 F.2d 991, at page 998, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit declared this judgment should be considered as a judgment in a true class action "and res adjudicata of the rights of all of the members of the class represented by the parties plaintiff therein."

July 2, 1957, the defendant unions and their successors filed in this action their motion to modify the injunctive phase of the judgment of December 7, 1945. The amendment sought was to provide that the injunction should have no prospective application to prohibit the defendant unions and the railroad from negotiating, entering into, or applying and enforcing any agreement or agreements authorized by Section 2, Eleventh, of the Railway Labor Act as amended January 10, 1951.

It was alleged in the motion that, at the time the original complaint in this case was filed and at the time the judgment was entered, the Railway Labor Act, particularly Section 2, Fourth and Fifth thereof, made it unlawful for carriers to interfere in any way with the organization of their employees or to coerce or compel their employees to join or remain, or not to join or remain, members of any labor organization.

It was further alleged that the amendment to the Railway Labor Act of January 10, 1951, and now constituting Section 152, Eleventh, of Title 45, United States Code Annotated, permitted the making of union security agreements as limited by that amendment, and authorized carriers and bargaining representatives of railway labor to provide for a union shop; that the unions here involved were currently seeking to negotiate an agreement with the railroad requiring the employees, as a condition to their continued employment, to become and remain members of the labor organizations representing their respective crafts; but, that the defendant railroad had refused to negotiate for such an agreement for the asserted reason that it would subject itself and such labor organizations to charges of contempt for violation of the injunctive phases of the judgment entered herein December 7, 1945.

It was alleged that the 1951 amendment to the Railway Labor Act terminated the rights of the non-union employees to be free from the requirements of union security agreements, and it was further alleged that it was no longer equitable that the injunction should have prospective application by prohibiting the defendant unions and the railroad from negotiating such union shop agreements.

The railroad filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file its response in the present proceedings to a date after the defendant unions should have given notice to individual members of the classes and crafts involved, alleging that some 2,500 of its employees in said classes and crafts did not belong to any labor organization, all and each of whom had rights adjudged to them in the decree of December 7, 1945, which entitled them to notice of the unions' motion. Such an order was entered,...