Wooldridge v. Denver & R. G. W. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 March 1948
• Docket Number: 15881.
• Citation: 191 P.2d 882,118 Colo. 25
• Parties: WOOLDRIDGE et al. v. DENVER & R. G. W. R. CO. et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

191 P.2d 882

118 Colo. 25

WOOLDRIDGE et al. v. DENVER & R. G. W. R. CO. et al.

No. 15881.

Supreme Court of Colorado, en Banc.

March 22, 1948

Rehearing Denied April 12, 1948.

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; George A Luxford, Judge.

Action by the Trustees of the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company against S. T. Wooldridge and others for declaratory judgment defining rights of parties under proposed contract with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen. Newly reorganized railroad company and its officers were substituted for the trustees. Judgment authorizing the railroad company to enter into proposed contract with the Railroad Brotherhood, and S. T. Wooldridge and others bring error.

Affirmed.

Coit &amp Graham, of Grand Junction, for plaintiffs in error.

T. R Woodrow and H. M. Boyle, both of Denver, for defendant in error Denver & R. G. W. R. Co.

Alden T. Hill, of Fort Collins, and Harold C. Heiss and Russell B. Day, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for other defendants in error.

JACKSON Justice.

Officials of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, as bargaining agent, requested the trustees of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company to enter into a contract with that union, giving certain locomotive firemen on a portion of the narrow-gauge lines of the company limited seniority rights on a portion of the standard-gauge lines. Some of the locomotive firemen, mostly members of the same brotherhood union, on the affected portion of the standard-gauge lines threatened court action against the employing railroad company, hereinafter designated as the 'carrier,' if it entered into the proposed contract. Thereupon the trustees of the carrier--for whom have since been substituted the new reorganized company and its present officers--brought this action for a declaratory judgment asking that the rights of each party under the proposed contract be defined and the status of each be fixed and determined. After a trial to the court, the latter, after first finding that the dispute was justiciable and that it had jurisdiction, entered judgment adverse to the standard-gauge firemen and authorized the carrier to enter into the proposed contract with the railroad brotherhood. The standard-gauge firemen come here seeking reversal of the judgment.

The controversy arises out of the fact that the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad was originally constructed as a narrow-gauge line and, as such, during the eighteen-eighties, its main east and west line between Pueblo and Grand Junction included that section from Salida over Marshall Pass through Gunnison, Montrose and Delta. In the last decade of the nineteenth century the present standard-gauge line was completed which, as constructed west from Pueblo, diverged at Salida from the line of the earlier narrow-gauge and followed the course of the Arkansas river north to Tennessee Pass, then down the valleys of the Eagle and the Colorado rivers through Minturn and Glenwood Springs to Grand Junction. In the twentieth century, diversion of through traffic over standard-gauge lines and the competition of truck and auto for local traffic have operated to bring about steadily diminishing returns from the narrow-gauge portions of the railroad. This has resulted in the abandonment of considerable narrow-gauge mileage and the operation of the remaining narrow-gauge on greatly reduced schedules. I the nineteen-thirties the original narrow-gauge line from Salida to Grand Junction was itself in the latter category. It was represented by seniority district No. 13 from Salida to Gunnison, No. 14 from Gunnison to Montrose (including the Crested Butte and Ouray branches), and No. 16 from Montrose to Grand Junction. Another narrow-gauge line leaving Salida--in a similar class of reduced operations and earnings--was Seniority District No. 15 via Mears Junction to Alamosa, in the San Luis Valley. The employment of some of the men in these districts by the carrier became so seasonal that there were long intervals of unemployment, with the result that their railroad earnings alone would not afford them a living.

This situation became the matter of negotiation between the carrier and the brotherhood, and resulted in a contract dated July 31, 1936, under which the narrow-gauge firemen, who might wish to work on the corresponding portions of the standard-gauge line, obtained a priority rating as of August 1, 1936. Thus priority districts No. 13, Salida to Gunnison, and No. 16, Salida to Alamosa, were given an August 1, 1936, standard-gauge priority on district No. 3, Salida to Minturn; whereas priority districts No. 14, Gunnison to Montrose (including the branches: Gunnison to Crested Butte and Montrose to Ouray), and No. 16, Montrose to Grand Junction, were given the same priority date, August 1, 1936, on standard-gauge priority district No. 4 extending from Minturn to Grand Junction. This afforded the narrow-gauge men work on the standard-gauge lines, when employment on the narrow-gauge lines became slack, but left it incumbent upon the narrow-gauge men to respond to calls to work on the narrow-gauge if they wished to protect their narrow-gauge priorities which were of considerably earlier date than their 1936 standard-gauge priority.

The contract of July 31, 1936, continued in force until April 1, 1945. It will be observed that it did not give the narrow-gauge employees priority over any standard-gauge men then employed. It simply gave the narrow-gauge men a priority status in respect to any firemen who might be employed on the standard-gauge portion of the line subsequent to August 1, 1936.

Apparently, however, the subsequently employed broad-gauge firemen disliked being junior in priority to the intermittently employed narrow-gauge men, and agitation grew for the cancellation of the contract.

The records of the proceedings of the Brotherhood, introduced in evidence, show that even as early as 1938 objection had been made to the legality of the 1936 agreement and that the president of the brotherhood had rendered a decision under date of March 8, 1938, that:

'The settlement dated July 31, 1936, does not constitute a consolidation nor a division of the seniority districts involved, and therefore it is not a violation of Article 14, Section 16, Paragraph (e) of the constitution. It does not constitute a transfer of firemen from one seniority district to another, and therefore does not in any way violate the provisions of Article 35, Denver & Rio Grande Western enginemen's agreement.

'The settlement in no way affects the seniority districts as prescribed in that part of Article 69, Denver & Rio Grande Western enginemen's agreement, and therefore it is in accord with Article 69 of the agreement.

'In view of the facts set forth above, decision is hereby rendered denying the appeal and sustaining the action of the general grievance committee.'

The minutes of the meeting of the general grievance committee held March 12, 1942, show that on motion to terminate the agreement of August 1, 1936, members voted two for and ten against.

Minutes of the general grievance committee meeting held August 23, 1943, disclose that a motion to cancel the 1936 agreement was voted four yes and six no.

The general grievance committee meeting held January 16, 1945, by a vote of nine to three rejected the recommendation of the executive committee to continue the 1936 agreement.

Chairman Chipman of the general grievance committee, in accordance with the rules of his organization, thereupon notified the employing carrier of the action of his committee and served upon it a thirty-day notice of termination of the agreement. This was in accordance with a provision in the 1936 agreement that, the 'foregoing agreement shall continue in effect until January 1, 1937 and remain in effect thereafter until the expiration of thirty days notice in writing served by one of the parties hereto upon the other.' Through subsequent arrangement between the railroad and the brotherhood, the effective date of cancellation of the agreement was deferred until April 1, 1945.

None of the parties to the litigation contends that the 1936 agreement was terminated illegally. On the contrary, all admit that legal termination of the agreement was effected in accordance with the terms of the agreement itself, and that the method of termination conforms to the rules and regulations of the brotherhood which named the chairman of the general grievance committee as the legal representative of the bargaining agent with full power to represent the brotherhood in dealings on matters of seniority with the carrier.

After the termination of the 1936 contract the following events occurred which were the immediate reasons for the bringing of this action. An appeal was promptly taken by two narrow-gauge firemen, representing respectively their lodges at Grand Junction and Salida, to the president of the brotherhood in accordance with the rules governing appeals.

The president in his decision, after carefully reviewing and commenting upon all of the pertinent facts, including a reference to his earlier ruling of 1938, concluded as follows:

'While I appreciate that Item 10 of the Agreement of July 31, 1936, provides for procedure for terminating such agreement, I have, nevertheless, reached the conclusion that the general grievance committee was not justified in taking the action it took on January 16, 1945, particularly since such action in no way whatsoever protects the seniority rights acquired by some sixty Narrow Gauge firemen on the Main Line, effective August 1, 1936, about thirty of whom were exercising this seniority on March 28, 1945, the date on which the carrier cancelled

...