Ford v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 09 June 1977 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 75-0050-R. |
Parties | Ryland H. FORD v. The CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY, a Virginia Corporation. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
Michael McH. Collins, Collins, Wilson, Collins & Singleton, Covington, Va., for plaintiff.
Philip L. Lotz, Lotz, Black, Coleman & Gudal, Staunton, Va., for defendant.
In this action pursuant to § 307(a) of the Railroad Passenger Service Act, 45 U.S.C. § 547(a), Ryland Ford seeks to recover wages assertedly due him under a labor protective agreement, but which were withheld by his employer, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company ("the Railway"). Mr. Ford worked for the Railway from 1946 until 1976 in various capacities and was designated a trucker C-179 (porter) at Ronceverte, West Virginia in 1970. On May 1, 1971, Amtrak assumed responsibility for certain of the Railway's routes, thus abolishing the trucker C-179 position at Ronceverte. The Railroad Passenger Service Act ("Amtrak Act"), 45 U.S.C. § 501 et seq., required that Amtrak and the Railway reach a "protective agreement" to cushion the impact of Amtrak "takeovers" upon the earning power of displaced employees such as Mr. Ford. The Railway entered into such a protective agreement with Amtrak, subsequently which was certified as fair and equitable by the Secretary of Labor, and incorporated by his direction in the collective bargaining agreement between the carrier and its employees. 45 U.S.C. § 565. Under its terms, Mr. Ford, as a displaced employee, had certain options. He could obtain a lump sum severance payment and retire from service, or he could elect to take advantage of a six-year guaranteed wage scheme keyed to his earnings as a trucker, the last position he had occupied. Mr. Ford chose the latter, commonly called the Amtrak guarantee.
The protective agreement at issue, Appendix C-1 to the collective bargaining agreement between the Railway and BRAC, Mr. Ford's collective bargaining agents, provides in pertinent part:
The Railway does not dispute that Mr. Ford qualified in all respects under the terms and conditions set forth above for guaranteed Amtrak payments for a six-year period from the date of his displacement, that is, until April 30, 1977. Payments were commenced in May 1971. In October, 1974, however, the Railway determined it had overpaid Mr. Ford for the period January 1, 1972 until October 31, 1974 in the approximate amount of $11,197.71, and without notice to him ceased all payments in order to recoup that sum. Plaintiff accordingly received no compensation for a period in excess of one year, until the Railway by this method had recovered the asserted excess.
At trial, the Railway offered intricate and ultimately confusing explanations of how it overpaid Mr. Ford. Thus, it remains unclear under just what theory Mr. Ford was compensated during the period of alleged overpayment. It is clear, however, that scant precedent exists in the industry for the manner in which recoupment was effected. A member of the Railway's labor relations department testified that small overpayments were often made due to the complexity and multitude of agreements affecting wages, and the mechanical problems of establishing hours and rates of pay. In such cases, overpayments are recouped by withholding the relatively small amounts involved from the employee's next paycheck. No arbitral authority, collective bargaining agreement provisions or other authority was cited for complete cessation of income for the period involved here.
At trial it was disclosed that the "overpayments" were made to Mr. Ford when the Railway's payroll department, as advised by its labor relations department, calculated his compensation on the basis of payroll forms "improperly" submitted by Railway agents charged with preparing such forms. The "mistake", if there was one, was the Railway's. That "mistake" persisted for a substantial time, although the Railway's payroll and labor relations personnel had ample opportunity to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sentner v. Amtrak
...of Amtrak's claim of immunity, despite some reference to that argument in appellate briefs. Similarly, in Ford v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., 432 F.Supp. 1285 (W.D.Va. 1977), rev'd on other grounds, 590 F.2d 557 (4th Cir. 1979)—not a suit against Amtrak, but brought pursuant to § 307(a) ......
-
Chesapeake and Ohio Ry. Co. v. Ford
...were wrongfully withheld from him by the Railroad. The Railroad has appealed from a judgment in favor of Ford reported at 432 F.Supp. 1285 (W.D.Va.1977). Because we believe that Ford was required first to attempt to exhaust his arbitral remedy and that he has failed to do so, we On May 1, 1......