Dillard v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 10 November 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 6454.,6454. |
Citation | 199 F.2d 948 |
Parties | DILLARD et al. v. CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Joseph C. Waddy, Washington, D. C. (T. G. Nutter, Charleston, W. Va., and William C. Gardner, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellants.
Richard R. Lyman, Toledo, Ohio, and Strother Hynes, Richmond, Va. , for appellees.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a class action instituted by Negro laborers employed by the C. & O. Railway Company against that company, certain labor organizations representing its employees as bargaining representatives and System Federation No. 41, an unincorporated association of these organizations. Some of the plaintiffs are machinists' helpers who allege that the federation and its component labor organizations are using the power vested in them by law as bargaining representatives of the employees to cause the railway company to deny to Negro machinists' helpers, solely on the ground of race and color, the promotion to better paying positions to which they are entitled under the rules and practices of the company. The other plaintiffs are laborers who allege a like abuse of power by the federation and the labor organizations to deny to the Negro laborers of the company promotion into the crafts or classes represented by the organizations. Plaintiffs ask a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and damages. The heart of the grievance of which they complain is thus stated in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the first count of their second amended complaint, viz.:
We think it was error to hold that, under these allegations, the District Court was without jurisdiction to afford any relief to plaintiffs. As to the machinists helpers, who were represented in collective bargaining by a union to which they were not admitted to membership and which discriminated against them on account of race and color, their right to relief and the jurisdiction of the court to grant it is squarely supported by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 65 S.Ct. 226, 89 L.Ed. 173; Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210, 65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed. 187, and Graham v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 338 U.S. 232, 70 S.Ct. 14, 94 L.Ed. 22, and the decisions of this court in Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Tunstall, 4 Cir., 163 F.2d 289, certiorari denied 332 U.S. 841, 68 S.Ct. 262, 92 L.Ed. 413, and Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 4 Cir., 186 F.2d 473. As to the laborers who were not represented by a bargaining representative, their right to relief and the jurisdiction of the court to grant it is supported by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Howard, 343 U.S. 768, 72 S.Ct. 1022.
In the case of Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co. supra, the Supreme Court pointed out that a union chosen as a bargaining representative of employees under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., was clothed with power conferred upon it by the government, which it would not otherwise possess, that it might...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thompson v. Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters
...100 L.Ed. 785 (1955). 11 Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 46, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); see, e. g., Dillard v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 199 F.2d 948, 950-951 (4th Cir., 1952); Richardson v. Texas & N. O. R. R., 242 F.2d 230, 234 (5th Cir., 1957); see also, Ostrofsky v. United Steelwo......
-
Cook v. Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters
...of Locomotive Engineers, 6 Cir., 226 F.2d 604, certiorari denied 350 U.S. 967, 76 S.Ct. 436, 100 L.Ed. 839; Dillard v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 4 Cir., 199 F.2d 948; Richardson v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 5 Cir., 242 F.2d 230; Central of Georgia, Ry. Co. v. Culpepper, 209 Ga. 844, 76 S.E.2d 482......
-
Haley v. Childers
...235, 89 L.Ed. 187 (1944); Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 323 U. S. 192, 65 S.Ct. 226, 89 L.Ed. 173 (1944); Dillard v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 4 Cir., 199 F.2d 948 (1952); and Sells v. International Brother. of Firemen & Oilers, W.D.Pa., 190 F.Supp. 857 (1961). The result in these cases ......
-
Howard v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
...173 (1944); Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, etc., 323 U.S. 210, 65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed. 187 (1944); Dillard v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 199 F.2d 948 (4 Cir. 1952); Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 186 F.2d 473 (4 Cir. 1951) are cited and relied Steele, supra, the principal......