376 U.S. 169 (1964), 49, Tilton v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.

Docket Nº:No. 49
Citation:376 U.S. 169, 84 S.Ct. 595, 11 L.Ed.2d 590
Party Name:Tilton v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
Case Date:February 17, 1964
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 169

376 U.S. 169 (1964)

84 S.Ct. 595, 11 L.Ed.2d 590

Tilton

v.

Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.

No. 49

United States Supreme Court

Feb. 17, 1964

Argued January 7, 1964

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Petitioners were employees of respondent railroad who had been provisionally "upgraded" (advanced) from helpers to journeymen in accordance with an agreement between their union and the railroad, under which permanent seniority status as journeymen could be achieved following completion of a prescribed work period in the upgraded position. Petitioners' completion of the work period was delayed by their absence in military service, resulting in previously junior nonveterans completing the work period before petitioners, and thereby attaining status senior to that of petitioners. Seeking restoration of seniority rights under Section 9 of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, petitioners brought this action in the District Court, which denied relief, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that petitioners' promotions were subject to contingencies and "variables" which precluded their advancement in status under the Act.

Held:

1. Under § 9(c)(1) and the "escalator principle" embodied in § 9(c)(2) of the Act, petitioners, upon completion of the work period, were entitled to seniority as of the earlier date on which they would have completed the work period but for their absence in military service. Diehl v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 348 U.S. 960, followed. Pp. 175-177.

2. Petitioners' advancement, unlike that involved in McKinney v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 357 U.S. 265, did not depend upon the exercise of management discretion, but was reasonably automatic and foreseeable. Pp. 180-181.

306 F.2d 870 reversed and remanded.

Page 170

GOLDBERG, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG delivered the opinion of the Court.

Since 1940, Congress, as an integral part of selective service legislation, has protected the reemployment rights of veterans.1 The principle underlying this legislation is

Page 171

that he who is "called to the colors [is] not to be penalized on his return by reason of his absence from his civilian job." Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U.S. 275, 284. Petitioners, reemployed veterans, sued respondent railroad, their employer, in the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.2 They claimed that they have been deprived of seniority rights to which they are entitled under [84 S.Ct. 598] the Universal Military Training and Service Act and the applicable collective bargaining agreement.

The District Court3 held that petitioners were not entitled to the relief they sought. The Court of Appeals

Page 172

for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 306 F.2d 870. We granted certiorari, 372 U.S. 905, because of the importance of the question in administering the statute protecting veterans' reemployment rights. For the reasons stated below, we reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are not in dispute. Petitioners were initially employed by respondent railroad as carmen helpers. At the time of their original employment and since, the railroad has suffered from a shortage of qualified journeymen carmen mechanics. The collective bargaining agreement between the union representing the carmen, the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America, and the railroad has provided methods for alleviating this shortage.4 Whenever the railroad is unable to employ persons presently qualified as carmen mechanics, the agreement provides for the advancement or "upgrading" of carmen helpers to provisional carman status. Representatives of the railroad and the union jointly select the helpers to be so advanced. A helper thus "upgraded" can then be employed by the railroad to perform the work of a journeyman carman mechanic and is entitled to be paid a carman mechanic's wage.

Under the labor agreement, however, the "upgraded" helper does not immediately acquire permanent seniority

Page 173

as a journeyman. He retains his seniority as a helper until completing 1,040 days of actual work as a carman mechanic. At the end of that time, the upgraded helper is considered a "qualified carman." He may then acquire a seniority date as a journeyman by making an election to that effect in writing.

Petitioners were upgraded from carmen helpers in accordance with the terms of the agreement. They were subsequently inducted into military service. At the time of his induction, Tilton had worked 145 days as a carman, Beck 851 days, and McClearn 21 days. Upon his honorable discharge from military service, each petitioner promptly returned to employment at the railroad, was reemployed as an upgraded carman, and thereafter satisfactorily completed the remainder of the 1,040-day work period necessary to qualify for journeyman status. Each thereupon immediately elected to acquire seniority as a journeyman carman mechanic. In each case, the railroad established petitioners' seniority as journeymen as of the date each actually completed the 1,040-day work period. As a result, petitioners had journeyman seniority junior to that of some carmen who had been upgraded to provisional carman status after petitioners were so advanced but who -- because they were not absent in military service -- were able to complete the 1,040-day service requirement before petitioners.

These nonveterans are now ahead of petitioners on the journeymen carmen's seniority roster, and enjoy the advantages [84 S.Ct. 599] which seniority dictates, such as work preference and order of layoff and recall.

Petitioners contend that, under this arrangement, their absence in military service improperly affected their seniority because nonveteran employees who were junior on the temporary upgraded list are now senior on the permanent carmen's list.

Page 174

Petitioners' claim rests upon §§ 9(c)(1) and 9(c)(2) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act. In § 9(c)(1), Congress directed that veterans returning from military service be restored to their civilian employment "without loss of seniority." This provision was first enacted as part of the National Guard Act, Joint Resolution of August 27, 1940, c. 689, 54 Stat. 858. The Chairman of the House Military Affairs Committee, in reporting the conference and final version of the bill...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP