Gregory v. Louisville & NRR
| Decision Date | 15 September 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 1835.,1835. |
| Citation | 92 F. Supp. 770 |
| Parties | GREGORY et al. v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. R. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
Harry M. Leet, Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., Matthew O. Henchey, Asst. U. S. Atty., Louisville, Ky., for plaintiffs.
C. S. Landrum, Lexington, Ky., J. P. Hamilton, Louisville, Ky., for defendant.
Robert E. Hogan, Louisville, Ky., Richard R. Lyman, Toledo, Ohio, for interveners.
This action was instituted February 8, 1950, by plaintiffs Harry Gregory, Charles Van Vactor, and Casper Waters, suing for themselves and all employees similarly situated, defendant Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, for restoration of their respective seniority rights and damages, which plaintiffs claim to have sustained as a result of the defendant's alleged violation of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 301 et seq.
The defendant, Railroad Company, by its answer denied any violation of the Act and any unauthorized impairment in the seniority status of plaintiffs and other employees similarly situated.
May 3, 1950, the System Federation No. 91 of the Railway Employes' Department of the American Federation of Labor filed its motion to be permitted to intervene and tendered therewith its answer to the petition of plaintiffs.
The System Federation is the duly and legally selected representative through which the Unions representing various crafts of railroad employees of defendant bargain collectively under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, Title 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.
A trial was had to the Court on the sixth day of September 1950, the evidence consisting in the main of a stipulation filed by the plaintiffs, the Railroad Company and the intervening System Federation No. 91.
Oral proof was heard, none of which contradicts the facts appearing in the stipulation. The Court finds separately the facts and conclusions of law.
Findings of Fact.
1. The facts as contained in the stipulation of the parties filed herein September 1, 1950, are adopted by the Court and made a part hereof, without being copied. They consist of ten typewritten pages and it is thought unnecessary to copy them in full in this memorandum.
2. The plaintiff, Harry Gregory, was first employed by defendant, Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, as a laborer May 1, 1937. He continued in the status of a laborer until his induction into the military service May 13, 1942; was honorably discharged in October 1945, made timely application for reemployment, was reemployed shortly prior to November 25, 1945, as a laborer and on the last named date was promoted to machinist helper and his seniority in his new position was fixed as of July 3, 1942, the date on which B. Harper, a laborer with less seniority than Gregory was promoted and began to work as a machinist helper.
Gregory's name upon the seniority roster of machinist helpers was placed immediately ahead of that of Harper.
3. Plaintiff Charles Van Vactor was first employed by defendant as a laborer May 1, 1937. He continued in the status of a laborer until his induction into the military service May 13, 1942, was honorably discharged September 8, 1945, made timely application for reemployment, was reemployed shortly prior to November 19, 1945, as a laborer and on November 19, 1945, was promoted to a machinist helper and his seniority as a machinist helper was fixed as June 8, 1942, the date on which E. L. Van Vactor was promoted to and began to work as a machinist helper. Charles Van Vactor's name upon the seniority roster as a machinist helper was placed immediately ahead of E. L. Van Vactor.
4. Plaintiff Casper Waters was first employed by the defendant as a laborer January 15, 1937. He continued in the status of laborer until his induction into the military service June 30, 1941, from which service he was honorably discharged December 31, 1945, made timely application for reemployment, was reemployed shortly prior to March 27, 1946 as a laborer and on March 27, 1946, was promoted to a machinist helper and his seniority in his new position was fixed as July 20, 1942, the date on which G. H. Welker, a laborer with less seniority than Waters was promoted to and began work as a machinist helper.
Waters' name upon the seniority roster of machinist helpers was placed immediately ahead of that of G. H. Welker.
5. None of the plaintiffs had any seniority as machinist helpers at the time of his induction into the military services.
6. Plaintiffs Gregory, Van Vactor and Waters each left positions as laborers in the employ of the defendant Railroad Company, other than temporary positions, in order to enter the armed forces.
There is no question in this case as to the qualification and timeliness of application for reemployment by the plaintiffs.
7. During the absence of the plaintiffs, while in military service, a number of individuals were assigned to positions as machinist helpers and acquired machinist helper seniority as of the date they began work as such machinist helpers. Some of such individuals possessed more laborer's seniority than did the plaintiffs, some less and some had no laborer's seniority at all. The retroactive machinist helper seniority dates assigned to plaintiffs were the dates on which a laborer with less seniority standing than the plaintiff in each instance was promoted to the position of helper.
8. The classification of laborer and that of machinist helper in defendant railroad's employment fall within separate crafts or classes, and the wages, rules and working conditions of employees within each of said classifications, including seniority and seniority rights, are established and governed by completely separate and distinct collective bargaining agreements between the Railroad Company and separate and distinct statutory collective bargaining representatives for each of the separate crafts or classes within which such job classifications fall.
The classification of laborer falls within the craft or class known as the unskilled craft while that of machinist helper comes within the craft or class known as machinists, and is a skilled craft.
An employee of the Railroad Company promoted from a position of laborer to that of machinist helper goes from a craft or class into a separate and distinct craft or class and has a different representative for the purpose of collective bargaining and becomes subject to a different and distinct collective bargaining agreement.
Seniority and seniority rights of machinist helpers within that classification are separate and distinct from seniority and seniority rights of laborers within the laborer class. Seniority of machinist helpers within that class is wholly separate from that applicable to laborers. Machinist helpers have seniority rights among machinist helpers, laborers have seniority rights among laborers and neither type of seniority conveys any seniority rights within the other class.
9. The collective bargaining agreements applicable to machinists, their apprentices and helpers in the Railroad Company's employ contain no provision relating to the promotion of laborers to positions of machinist helpers, or requiring that machinist helpers be drawn from the ranks of laborers.
The collective bargaining agreement effective June 1, 1942, applicable to laborers or the unskilled craft contained this paragraph—
The parties have stipulated and the Court finds as a fact that at no time material herein has the above-quoted agreement been intended, interpreted or applied by the parties as requiring the Railroad Company to fill vacant or new machinist helper positions by the promotion of laborers in the order of their laborer's seniority.
On numerous occasions, before, during and after the period of plaintiffs' absence in the armed forces, the defendant Railroad Company employed as machinist helpers persons who were not working either as laborers or as machinist helpers and who held no seniority in either classification, even though there were then available laborers who might have been, and some of whom subsequently were, promoted to positions as machinist helpers. Some of the laborers promoted to machinist helpers before, during and after plaintiff's absence in the armed forces, were not promoted in order of their seniority as laborers.
10. Under the collective bargaining agreements governing seniority and seniority rights among machinist helpers, as intended, interpreted and applied by the parties, it is provided that seniority as a machinist helper should commence on the date on which an employee first performed service as a regularly assigned machinist helper at his point of employment.
11. The assignment to plaintiffs and other reemployed veterans of retroactive seniority as machinist helpers, antedating the date on which they first performed work as regularly assigned machinist helpers, was in contravention of the applicable agreements as they were intended, interpreted and applied by the parties to said agreements. At no time has any machinist helper in the employ of the Railroad Company, other than a returned veteran of World War II, been intentionally accorded seniority antedating the date on which he first performed service as a regularly assigned machinist helper at his point of employment.
12. Effective January 31, 1949, the Railroad Company and the Collective Bargaining Agency of its employees in the skilled crafts entered into an agreement under which the antedated seniority given the reemployed veterans (plaintiffs herein) was revised so as to give to the reemployed veteran seniority as machinist helper as of the date...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Addison v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co.
...161 F. 2d 545; Spearmon v. Thompson, 8 Cir., 167 F.2d 626; Nevins v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 6 Cir., 172 F.2d 535; Gregory v. Louisville & N. R. R., D.C., 92 F.Supp. 770, affirmed, 6 Cir., 191 F.2d 7 62 Stat. 604, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 459. 8 Nevins v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., supra. ...
-
Sularz v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie R. Co.
...v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 6 Cir., 172 F.2d 535; Raulins v. Memphis Union Station Co., 6 Cir., 168 F.2d 466; Gregory v. Louisville & N. R. R., D.C., W.D.Ky., 92 F.Supp. 770, affirmed, 6 Cir., 191 F.2d 856, certiorari denied 343 U.S. 903, 72 S.Ct. 634, 96 L.Ed. 1323. This Court is persuaded th......
-
Sularz v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie R. Co.
...v. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., 6 Cir., 191 F.2d 856, certiorari denied 343 U.S. 903, 72 S.Ct. 634, 96 L. Ed. 1323, affirming D.C., 92 F.Supp. 770, 777; Hewitt v. System Federation No. 152, 7 Cir., 161 F.2d 545; Lesher v. P. R. Mallory & Co., 7 Cir., 166 F.2d 983; Poore v. Louisville &......
-
Gregory v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company
...and Raulins v. Memphis Union Station Co., 6 Cir., 168 F.2d 466, the judgment of the District Court, herein appealed from, is affirmed. 92 F.Supp. 770. ...