Delaware, L. & WR Co. v. Slocum, Civil Action No. 1731.
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York |
| Writing for the Court | KNIGHT |
| Citation | 56 F. Supp. 634 |
| Parties | DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO. v. SLOCUM et al. |
| Decision Date | 21 June 1944 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1731. |
56 F. Supp. 634
DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO.
v.
SLOCUM et al.
Civil Action No. 1731.
District Court, W. D. New York.
June 21, 1944.
Sayles, Flannery & Evans, of Elmira, N.Y. (Rowland L. Davis, Jr., and Pierre W. Evans, both of Elmira, N.Y., of counsel), for plaintiff, appearing specially for this motion.
Hassenauer, McKeown & Trussell, of Chicago, Ill., and John F. Dwyer, of Buffalo, N.Y., for defendant Slocum.
KNIGHT, District Judge.
Two motions are here for consideration.
This suit was first brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the construction of certain separate contracts between the parties and the two union organizations. Defendant Slocum thereafter applied in such Supreme Court for an order directing removal of the action to the United States District Court. This application was denied. Thereafter a bond on removal was approved by me. The plaintiff appearing specially moves to remand the cause to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and the defendant moves to dismiss the action.
The complaint alleges that Lackawanna Division No. 30 of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers and the System Board of Adjustment, Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad, of Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, are voluntarily unincorporated associations constituted for the purpose of collective bargaining and that each of such organizations has been duly certified under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.; that each of the afore-mentioned organizations is recognized by the plaintiff as the sole bargaining agent for the class of employees qualified to hold positions defined within the scope of the scope rule set forth in the collective bargaining agreement between the plaintiff and each of such organizations; that the said Order of Railroad Telegraphers maintains that certain work performed by so-called "crew callers" comes within the scope of the scope rule of an agreement between the plaintiff and said Order of Telegraphers; that the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks aforesaid maintains that all work performed by said "crew callers" comes
The motion of the defendant Slocum will first be considered.
The motion papers set forth as their basis the single ground that this court is without jurisdiction because of the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended June 21, 1934, 45 U.S.C.A. § 153 First Division (i). Upon the hearing on the motion and in his brief defendant Slocum raises the additional grounds that the complaint fails to state a cause of action under the state rules governing declaratory judgments and that the public interest will be served by denial of relief, since it does not appear that private interests of the plaintiff will be irreparably damaged.
Moore v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 312 U.S. 630, 61 S.Ct. 754, 756, 85 L.Ed. 1089, settled the question of the necessity of invoking the aforesaid provisions of the Railway Labor Act as a prerequisite to an action. The court there said:
"The legislative history of the Railway Labor Act shows a consistent purpose on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slocum v. Delaware Co, No. 391
...Misc. 454, 50 N.Y.S.2d 313. The opinion of the United States District Judge remanding the case to the state court is reported in D.C., 56 F.Supp. 634. 5. 'These unadjusted disputes have become so numerous that on several occasions the employees have resorted to the issuance of strike ballot......
-
Delaware, L.&W.R. Co. v. Slocum
...to dismiss the action. The motion to dismiss was denied and the railroad's motion to remand the case to our State court was granted. 56 F.Supp. 634. On February 5, 1945, the telegraphers' union made a motion at Special Term to dismiss the complaint which was denied in an unreported memorand......
-
Schatte v. International Alliance, etc., No. 6063.
...merely affect commerce to bring it within the scope of Section 41(8) or Section 41(1). Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. v. Slocum, D.C., 56 F.Supp. 634. In Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U. S. 109, at page 112, 57 S.Ct. 96, at page 97, 81 L.Ed. 70, Mr. Justice Cardozo "To bring a case w......
-
Strawser v. Reading Co., Civ. A. No. 8206.
...Co. v. Order of Railway Conductors of America, D.C., 63 F.Supp. 306; Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Co. v. Slocum, D.C., 56 F.Supp. 634; Barnhart v. Western Maryland R. Co., 4 Cir., 128 F.2d 709; Swartz v. South Buffalo R. Co., D.C., 44 F.Supp. The Supreme Court dealt with the ap......
-
Slocum v. Delaware Co, No. 391
...Misc. 454, 50 N.Y.S.2d 313. The opinion of the United States District Judge remanding the case to the state court is reported in D.C., 56 F.Supp. 634. 5. 'These unadjusted disputes have become so numerous that on several occasions the employees have resorted to the issuance of strike ballot......
-
Delaware, L.&W.R. Co. v. Slocum
...to dismiss the action. The motion to dismiss was denied and the railroad's motion to remand the case to our State court was granted. 56 F.Supp. 634. On February 5, 1945, the telegraphers' union made a motion at Special Term to dismiss the complaint which was denied in an unreported memorand......
-
Schatte v. International Alliance, etc., No. 6063.
...merely affect commerce to bring it within the scope of Section 41(8) or Section 41(1). Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. v. Slocum, D.C., 56 F.Supp. 634. In Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U. S. 109, at page 112, 57 S.Ct. 96, at page 97, 81 L.Ed. 70, Mr. Justice Cardozo "To bring a case w......
-
Strawser v. Reading Co., Civ. A. No. 8206.
...Co. v. Order of Railway Conductors of America, D.C., 63 F.Supp. 306; Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Co. v. Slocum, D.C., 56 F.Supp. 634; Barnhart v. Western Maryland R. Co., 4 Cir., 128 F.2d 709; Swartz v. South Buffalo R. Co., D.C., 44 F.Supp. The Supreme Court dealt with the ap......