DETROIT & TOLEDO SHORE LR CO. v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOC. F. & E., 18059.

• Decision Date: 03 March 1969
• Docket Number: No. 18059.,18059.
• Parties: The DETROIT AND TOLEDO SHORE LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

401 F.2d 368 (1968)

The DETROIT AND TOLEDO SHORE LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18059.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

October 7, 1968.

Certiorari Granted March 3, 1969.

Francis M. Shea, Washington, D. C., for appellant; Richard T. Conway, Ralph J. Moore, Jr., David W. Miller, Shea & Gardner, Washington, D. C., James R. Wolfe, Chicago, Ill., John M. Curphey, Robinson, Curphey & O'Connell, Toledo, Ohio, on brief.

Richard R. Lyman, Toledo, Ohio, and Donald W. Bennett, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellee; Harold C. Heiss, Russell B. Day, Heiss, Day & Bennett, Cleveland, Ohio, Richard M. Colasurd, Mulholland, Hickey & Lyman, Toledo, Ohio, on brief.

Before McCREE and COMBS, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.

Certiorari Granted March 3, 1969. See 89 S.Ct. 990.

COMBS, Circuit Judge.

The Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad Shore Line brought suit to enjoin a threatened strike by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen BLF&E. The BLF&E counterclaimed, seeking to enjoin a change in work assignments proposed by Shore Line. The District Court dismissed Shore Line's complaint and issued the injunction sought by BLF&E, 267 F. Supp. 572 (1967). This appeal followed.

Shore Line's main line of railroad runs from Toledo, Ohio to Detroit, Michigan. Until 1961, all work assignments for Shore Line's crews started and ended at Lang Yard in Toledo. An increasing volume of business in Trenton, Michigan caused Shore Line to consider the establishment of a terminal there. A major difficulty in this regard stemmed from the fact that all of its work assignments for many years had originated at Lang Yard, thirty-three miles away. Thus, to service a train starting and ending its run in Trenton, it was necessary to transport the work crews to and from Lang Yard each day.

In 1961, Shore Line notified three unions representing its employees, including BLF&E, that certain designated work assignments would henceforth originate in Trenton. The unions served notice on Shore Line, pursuant to Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act, proposing certain special working conditions for employees who would operate out of Trenton. Conferences on these notices brought no agreement and the matter was referred to the National Mediation Board. While the case was pending before the Board, Shore Line established two new work assignments to originate in Dearoad, Michigan, eleven miles north of Trenton. The crews operating out of Dearoad were driven to Trenton by a taxicab service operated by Shore Line.

When the Dearoad work assignments were announced, the BLF&E withdrew from the Mediation Board proceedings and, before a Special Board of Adjustment, challenged Shore Line's right to establish the new work assignments.¹ It was asserted that these assignments were contrary to the collective bargaining agreement between the parties. On November 30, 1965, the Special Board ruled that the Shore Line-BLF&E bargaining agreement did not prohibit the establishment of outlying work assignments.

Shortly after the action by the Special Board, Shore Line revived its plan to originate work assignments out of Trenton. Learning this, BLF&E served a Section 6 notice on Shore Line, proposing an amendment to the existing collective bargaining agreement to the effect that "all road service runs and/or assignments will originate and terminate at Lang Yard. * * *" The parties, being unable to agree, submitted the matter to the National Mediation Board. Notwithstanding this action, Shore Line posted notices...