Chicago & NW Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng.
Decision Date | 02 February 1962 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 4-1159. |
Citation | 202 F. Supp. 277 |
Parties | CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, an unincorporated association, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
Carl McGowan and Jordan Jay Hillman, Chicago, Ill., and Frank W. Davis, of Davis, Huebner, Johnson, Burt & Fulton, Des Moines, Iowa, for plaintiff.
V. Craven Shuttleworth, Harry E. Wilmarth, Charles A. Hastings and William R. Shuttleworth, of Elliott, Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for defendants.
Plaintiff, Chicago and North Western Railway Company, (North Western) brought this action against defendants, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Switchmen's Union of North America, AFL-CIO, all unincorporated associations, and various officials of each of said associations as officials of said associations and individually. Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment as authorized by Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202, declaring the rights of the parties with respect to a controversy which has arisen regarding the lawful procedures to be followed in the coordination and consolidation of plaintiff's existing and newly acquired railroad yards in Marshalltown, Iowa.
In brief, plaintiff contends that the procedures governing personnel changes contemplated in the consolidation of railroad yards at Marshalltown, Iowa, are prescribed in a stipulation executed by the North Western and the defendants and authorized by the Interstate Commerce Commission as a part of its order approving plaintiff's acquisition of the properties and franchises of the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company (M. & St. L.). Defendants contend the personnel changes contemplated involve seniority rights and other changes in rules that are contractual rights which can only be changed under procedures prescribed by the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.).
North Western is a common carrier by railroad engaged in interstate commerce, and as such is subject to the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act. Defendant associations are labor organizations, national in scope, each of which serves as the collective bargaining representative for certain of North Western's employees who may be effected by the proposed unification of North Western's old and newly acquired (M. & St. L.) railroad yards in Marshalltown, Iowa. Individual defendants named in plaintiff's complaint are various officers, representatives or agents of defendant organizations, whose duties relate to the representation of North Western employees, including those of the former M. & St. L.
The Interstate Commerce Commission pursuant to its authority under Section 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C.A. § 5) approved and authorized the purchase by North Western of the properties and franchises of the M. & St. L. (hereinafter referred to as the Merger) by formal order entered on October 13, 1960.1 Pursuant to said order North Western acquired all of the railroad properties of M. & St. L., and effective November 1, 1960, said M. & St. L. ceased to exist as a common carrier.
Section 5(2) (f) of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C.A. § 5(2) (f)) provides that in its approval of any unification transaction under said section "the Commission shall require a fair and equitable arrangement to protect the interests of the railroad employees affected." In accordance with this obligation the Commission found as follows:
3
The stipulation (hereinafter referred to as the "stipulation") was executed by North Western, M. & St. L. and by the Railway Labor Executives Association, acting as the duly designated representatives of the four defendant labor organizations, as well as others. The "stipulation" provides:3a
"That in the event the Interstate Commerce Commission shall grant the authority requested in Finance Docket No. 21115, the Commission may accept this agreement as one providing a fair and equitable arrangement for the protection of the interests of such employes as provided in Section 5(2) (f) of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended."
The "stipulation" also provided:
Pertinent portions of the Washington Job Protection Agreement as incorporated in the "stipulation" provide as follows:
The "stipulation" further provides:
Prior to November 1, 1960, each company, by virtue of its separate identity, conducted its own switching operations at Marshalltown, Iowa, over and in its own separate yard tracks and facilities.
North Western handled its switching in its Marshalltown yard through a single yard engine assigned to one 8-hour shift 5 days each week. Plaintiff's employees at this yard consisted of the following classes and numbers: One engineer, represented for collective bargaining purposes by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; one fireman, represented by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen; one yard foreman and two yard helpers, each represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. The engineer and fireman held seniority in their respective crafts over the east-subdivision of plaintiff's Iowa Division, which included its Marshalltown yards. The yard foreman and helpers held seniority in their respective crafts in all of plaintiff's yards on its Iowa Division.
M. & St. L. handled its larger Marshalltown yard switching operations through the assignment of yard engines covering two 8-hour shifts, one shift covering 6 days, and the other 7 days, each week. The following classes and number of employees were assigned to each shift: One engineer, represented for collective bargaining purposes by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; one fireman, represented by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen; and one yard foreman and two yard helpers, represented by the Switchmen's Union of North America, AFLCIO. Each of the engineers and firemen held seniority in their respective crafts on all M. & St. L. lines of railroad south of Albert Lea, Minnesota, to Peoria, Illinois. Seniority of the yard foreman and helpers was limited to the Marshalltown yards. In addition to these employees, there was also assigned to a single 8-hour...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United Transp. Union v. Norfolk & Western R. Co., Civ. A. 85-3410.
...Labor Act." Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Chicago and North Western Railway Co., 314 F.2d 424, 428 (8th Cir.), aff'g, 202 F.Supp. 277 (S.D.Iowa 1962), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 819, 84 S.Ct. 55, 11 L.Ed.2d 53 (1963): "Gully ... states the test of jurisdiction: `The right of immunity m......
-
Division 1287, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO v. Kansas City Area Transp. Authority
...of Locomotive Engineers v. Chicago & North Western Ry. Co., 314 F.2d 424 (8th Cir. 1963), Aff'g Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 202 F.Supp. 277 (S.D.Ia.1962). IV On the merits the Authority makes two arguments for reversal: first, that as an alternati......
-
Clemens v. Central Railroad Company of New Jersey
...1963); Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co. v. Cantrell, 215 F.Supp. 229 (M.D.Tenn.1962); Chicago and North Western Railway Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, D.C., 202 F.Supp. 277, aff'd. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Co., 314 F.2d 424 (......
-
Nemitz v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co.
...are relevant to the instant case, are perhaps best stated by the trial court, reported as Chicago & Northwestern R.R. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng'rs, 202 F.Supp. 277, 283 (S.D.Iowa 1962): "The basic question presented herein is, whether the parties are required to follow the procedures......