Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TR.

Citation63 F. Supp. 640
Decision Date11 December 1945
Docket NumberNo. 1308.,1308.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Western District of Louisiana
PartiesTEXAS & P. RY. CO. et al. v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN et al.

M. E. Clinton, of Dallas, Tex., Esmond Phelps, of New Orleans, La., Fred G. Hudson, Jr., of Monroe, La., H. Payne Breazeale, of Baton Rouge, La., and Frank H. Peterman, of Alexandria, La., for plaintiffs.

Kemble K. Kennedy, of Baton Rouge, La., for defendants Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and Rapides Lodge No. 856 of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.

Fred G. Benton, of Baton Rouge, La., and C. Ory Dupont, of Plaquemine, La., for

individual defendants, who are employees of Texas & Pacific Ry. Co.

PORTERIE, District Judge.

Motions filed by the two defendants to dismiss this action for declaratory judgment sought by the two plaintiff railroads were considered and overruled at 60 F.Supp. 263.

The facts determined in that former opinion are to be taken and now placed in the case on the merits.

Taking these facts as a premise, and with the legal principles established from these facts in the opinion dismissing the motions, we determine and declare that in the trial on the merits of the case the main questions for us to decide are:

(a) Whether the decision by the joint executives of the three brotherhoods was legal and proper; and

(b) Whether or not the Board of Appeals of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen had anything to do with the issue under the Constitution of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; and

(c) Underlying the general query, if it be found that the action of the Board of Appeals was valid, if the seniority rights of the individual Texas & Pacific laborers were constitutional rights guaranteed to them under the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendments, whether these particular defendants should prevail notwithstanding.

Before proceeding to answer the three self-imposed queries above, (a), (b), and (c), we should have a preliminary general discussion.

The general rule is that our Courts should not interfere with such a controversy as here, if it involves nothing more than a construction of the constitution and laws of the Brotherhood, and the determination of the jurisdiction of the Board of Directors, the Board of Appeals, and the Grand Lodge. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company et al. v. Miller et al., 219 Ind. 389, 38 N.E.2d 239, 142 A.L.R. 1050.

Further, it follows, however, that, quoting from 142 A.L.R. 1067, Limitations on General Rule: "As the converse of the general rule that courts will not interfere with decisions made in good faith by appropriate union tribunals acting within the scope of their jurisdiction and power in settling controversies within the union over seniority rights arising out of the union's collective bargaining contract and its constitution, rules and bylaws, it would seem to follow that courts will protect a union member's seniority rights, so arising, against action by the union which is arbitrary, fraudulent, illegal, or in excess of the union's powers or those of the officers or tribunals through which it acts. So, a union member is entitled to judicial relief from the union's attempt to deprive him without authority of a personal or individual seniority privilege secured by contract with the employer. Piercy v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 1923, 198 Ky. 477, 248 S.W. 1042, 33 A.L.R. 322. Similarly, the seniority rights secured to members of a brotherhood by its rules and its contract with a railroad will be respected and protected by the courts against prejudicial change by a tribunal of the brotherhood acting in excess of powers conferred upon it by the brotherhood's constitution. Gleason v. Thomas, 117 W.Va. 550, 186 S.E. 304. And it has been said that seniority rights, when recognized and guaranteed by contracts between the employer and a union, inure to the benefit of individual employees, so that the employee may invoke the equity jurisdiction of courts if full resort to the union tribunals has proved unavailing because of unreasonable construction of union laws or want of good faith on the part of its officers. Lockwood v. Chitwood, 185 Okl. 44, 89 P.2d 951."

There is the general rule, too, that courts are without jurisdiction in disputes as to seniority rights when the remedies within the union have not been exhausted. This rule is inapplicable here, for no appeal has been taken to the proper channels within the union — what has been done is that an appeal was taken to the improper tribunal. Remedy within the union has been exhausted.

Moreover, in this case the Court is confronted with the request by the railroad carriers for a declaratory judgment which, as we have shown with reasons in our former opinion referred to above, they are entitled to have, even though the remedies within the brotherhood have not been exhausted.

A fortiori, however, are they entitled to an answer, since we are going to hold in this opinion that the Board of Appeals was absolutely without jurisdiction, and its action, consequently, was null and void. The action of the three executives of the brotherhoods maintaining the original contract of June 2, 1927, is final, though subject to appeal to the directors or to the convention of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen — the latter provision for an appeal being not important since it has not been taken. Additionally the limitations of time have run and the appeal is precluded.

We shall now proceed to answer what we posed in (a), (b), and (c).

(a) The decision by the joint executives of the three brotherhoods is empowered by Section 86, Interpretation of Laws, which is found under the main division "Grand Lodge" of the constitution, in part reading as follows: "The provisions of this Constitution shall be interpreted and construed according to their most plain and obvious meaning, and should any doubt arise as to the proper construction of any section or rule thereof it shall be referred to the President of the Brotherhood, whose decision shall be final, unless reversed by the Board of Directors or by the Grand Lodge."

This shows that in the procedure of the Board of Appeals, immediately upon the showing of a cause of law or policy of the brotherhood, the Board of Appeals, since it is without jurisdiction in such a matter, must immediately refer the matter to the president of the Brotherhood. So, clearly, the decision of the joint executives is legal and proper.

(b) An examination of the constitution of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (the latest), the fruit of the Second Quadrennial Convention held at Cleveland, Ohio, 1939, shows that under the primary heading of "Grand Lodge", under section 15-a, a Board of Appeals is created "to which shall be referred all appeals arising under General Rule No. 10 and Section 149 of the Constitution of the Brotherhood," and under section 15-b, "the duty of the Board of Appeals" is "to consider and determine all appeals arising under General Rule No. 10 and Section 149 of the Constitution of the Brotherhood."

Now the important question is to find out what are the provisions of section 149 and rule No. 10.

The crux of section 149 is contained in its first part: "An officer or member believing that an injustice has been done him in a trial, or in case of removal from office, or a decision of his lodge or by any action of the Legislative Board, may appeal from such action to the President of the Brotherhood in the following manner:"

Then (without quoting the exact language) it is further provided that from the president of the Brotherhood an appeal may go to the Board of Directors, and if that be not satisfactory, an appeal may then be taken to the Board of Appeals.

The important point to note is that section 149 is found in one of the few main divisions of the constitution, the one entitled "Subordinate Lodges." By context with sections 142-148, both inclusive, it is evident that the portent of section 149 is purely to provide trials of any member in the violation of "the duties of membership, or any of the principles of the Brotherhood" (quoting from section 142), and, also, to provide for the consequent manner of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Bryant v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • October 31, 1947
    ...jurisdiction of this Court is further based on the theory found in the case of the Texas & Pacific Railroad Company et al. v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen et al., D.C., 63 F.Supp. 640, at page 641. b. The plaintiffs reside in the Western District of c. That Guy A. Thompson, Trustee of t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT