Knudsen v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co.

• Citation: 106 F. Supp. 48
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
• Decision Date: 11 February 1952
• Parties: KNUDSEN v. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RY. CO.

106 F. Supp. 48

KNUDSEN v. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RY. CO.

United States District Court N. D. Illinois, E. D.

February 11, 1952.

Silver, Marciniak & Doherty, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners.

Lowell Hastings, Drennan J. Slater, Elwood Warden, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

LA BUY, District Judge.

The amended complaint is brought by three named plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The named plaintiffs are alleged to be authorized to represent operating employees of the defendant in the litigation of this action. There are three counts in the amended complaint. The first is brought pursuant to Section 153, subd. 1 (p) of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A., to enforce an order of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, plaintiffs claiming to be beneficiaries under such award. The second count and the third count rest jurisdiction upon diversity of citizenship and requisite jurisdictional amount. The second count alleges defendant has violated Appendix Rule 51 of the contract of January, 1927, between the Brotherhood and the railroad and that the Board has interpreted this rule to mean plaintiffs are entitled to one-half of all transfer work performed. The third count alleges that the carrier is violating Article II of the agreement of December 18, 1919, with the Brotherhood since plaintiffs are entitled to one-half of all the transfer work performed. It is alleged that plaintiffs are unable to ascertain the exact amount of damages and request an accounting from the defendant of all transfer work performed.

For a fuller understanding of the controversy sued on the following facts appear pertinent. Prior to January 1, 1927, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, alleged to be the duly certified bargaining agent of these plaintiffs, entered into a contract with the defendant fixing terms and conditions of employment. In said agreement Appendix Rule 51 provided in part as follows:

"Definition — Work of Road and Terminal Firemen in Chicago.

"51. Question 1. What constitutes work of Chicago Terminal Firemen?

"Answer: The work of assembling and disposing of cars entirely within the terminal district, the local junction switch runs excepted, and includes freight and passenger switching, transfer service and work trains."

This rule is the basis of the administrative proceeding and of the second count of the amended complaint.

In addition on December 18, 1919 the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen entered into an agreement with defendant carrier and other railroads fixing rules and rates of pay of yardmen in the Chicago Switching District. Article III of said agreement defines yard work and provides in part:

"(a) The following shall be considered yard work, shall be handled by yardmen and shall be compensated for at not less than yard rates. * * *

"(c) The transfer of all freight and passenger equipment operating exclusively within the switching limits; * * *."

This article is the premise for the claim alleged in the third count of the amended complaint.

In 1941 the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen and the Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company became parties to a dispute submitted to the National Railroad Adjustment Board. The claims proferred by the Brotherhood were (1) one day's pay at the transfer rate April 1, 1939 and other dates, account Indiana Harbor Belt Railway taking cars from 40th Street to Wood Street over Chicago and Northwestern tracks; (3) a protest on account of foreign line yard crews taking interchange out of 40th Street, Proviso, Wood Street and all other points in Chicago terminal, handling same over Chicago and Northwestern rails between the above-named points where they leave Chicago and Northwestern tracks, and (3) that foreign line crews delivering cars to Chicago and Northwestern do so at the first available yard after entering Chicago and Northwestern territory.

On June 21, 1941, the Board made the following findings:

"The protest is allowed and the parties are directed to forthwith negotiate a plan based on total volume of cars handled or trips made and miles traversed, which will place the employees of the carrier on a plane of approximate equality with the employees of each carrier with which cars are interchanged and without incurring light movements. In all other respects the claim is denied."

An order was transmitted to the carrier to make this award effective as follows:

"The Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company is hereby ordered to make effective Award No. 5791, made by the First Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board (copy of which is attached and made a part hereof), as therein set forth; and if the award includes a requirement for the payment of money, to pay the employee (or employees) the sum to which he is (or they are) entitled under the Award on or before July 19th, 1941."

In general the complaint alleges that there has been no compliance by the carrier with said award and further the carrier has continued to violate the aforesaid rules and articles of the contracts.

Of prime importance at the outset is a determination of the rights of these plaintiffs to prosecute an action under the Railway Labor Act as alleged in Count I; that is, whether these plaintiffs who are not alleged to be members of the union can sue as beneficiaries of the award of the Board.

The Railway Labor Act, Section 153, subd. 1(p) permits "any person for whose benefit such order was made" to file a petition for its enforcement. It is urged by the plaintiff that all employees of the class specified, members and non-members of the union, are beneficiaries under the award. The court is of the opinion this theory is correct and any employee of the class represented by the labor organization may sue on an award entered for the benefit of the class or craft without regard to membership in the representative organization. To such an action the Brotherhood is not an indispensable party since the statute clearly provides that action can be brought by the Petitioner before the Board or any person for whose benefit such an order was made. It is necessary, however, that allegations be made placing the employee within the identity of the class or craft represented in the proceedings before the Board. Plaintiffs should amend to include such allegation.

Having determined that plaintiffs have the right to sue under the award, the court proceeds to the issue raised that the award sued upon is invalid. The...