Myers v. Louisiana & A. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 06 February 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 519.,519. |
Citation | 7 F. Supp. 92 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Parties | MYERS et al. v. LOUISIANA & A. RY. CO. |
Barnette & Roberts, of Shreveport, La., for complainants.
Burford & White, of Shreveport, La., for respondents.
Plaintiff C. P. Myers, a resident of Caddo parish, La., brings this suit individually, as an employee in the capacity of a conductor, and as the general chairman of the Order of Railway Conductors, and the petition further recites that it is by "all of the conductors of the L. & A. lines, who are members of the Order of Railway Conductors." It alleges that the defendant is a corporation, under the laws of Delaware, doing business in the state of Louisiana; that Myers retains his rights as a conductor on said lines; that in his official capacity he is authorized to represent the order and its members in all disputes and grievances with the Railway Company; that he has made many requests for conferences, which the defendant has refused and will not recognize him as the representative of said order. The petition alleges two specific instances in which the conferences were requested by letters dated September 23, 1932, copies of which, with the replies of defendant, are attached to the petition, as well as copies of three other letters demanding such conferences, to which the petition alleges no reply was made. It further alleges that prior to these particular instances numerous requests had been made for conferences with respect to other matters, which had been refused or ignored. It is charged that by thus refusing to deal with petitioner as the proper representative of the Order of Railway Conductors, and through influence, coercion, and discriminatory dealings with the men, the officers of the company have repeatedly attempted to have the said Myers removed or displaced as general chairman and to have some one succeed him that the company could control.
The petition further alleges as follows:
The prayer of the petition was for a rule upon the defendant to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue "restraining and prohibiting defendant from refusing to meet and confer" with Myers in his official capacity, "at his request from time to time on all disputes between it * * * and its conductors * * * and from influencing, interfering with or coercing its conductors * * * either directly or indirectly, in the manner in which they may choose to designate and authorize their representative or representatives" to meet those of the defendant, from interfering with their self-organization and, upon final trial, that the injunction be made permanent.
A rule was issued December 2, 1932, and made returnable on the 17th of the same month. At the hearing, defendant moved to dismiss the bill and, subject thereto, filed answer to the rule. The motion to dismiss was upon the ground that the court was without jurisdiction "as to the parties or for injunctive relief." Further, that the "Order of Railway Conductors invoked the services of the Board of Mediation on August 27, 1932, on the question of alleged refusal of defendants to meet and transact business with C. P. Myers," and that cause was still pending before the Board.
In its answer, defendant moved to strike most of the allegations of the bill on the ground of impertinency, and subject thereto denied its allegations, except that it admitted plaintiff Myers retained his status as a conductor-employee of the defendant, that certain of its conductors belonged to the Order of Railway Conductors, "and defendant is informed that C. P. Myers was by them elected General Chairman of the General Committee." It also moved to strike the reference to other conductors as having joined in the bill, for the reason that their names and residences were not given. It specially pleaded that a contract had been made with the General Committee of the Order of Railway Conductors, on December 1, 1931, wherein said General Committee ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Virginian Ry. Co. v. SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 40, ETC.
...by an act of Congress and local public officials are without authority or power to protect or enforce such rights. Myers v. Louisiana & A. Ry. Co. (D.C.) 7 F.Supp. 92; Id. (D. C.) 7 F.Supp. This leaves four questions for our consideration: (1) Whether the mandatory feature of the decree is ......
-
Elsis v. Evans
...P.2d 191; Hagen v. Beth, 118 Cal. 330, 331, 50 P. 425; Gardner v. Stroever, 81 Cal. 148, 151, 22 P. 483, 6 L.R.A. 90; Myers v. Louisiana A. Ry. Co., D.C., 7 F.Supp. 92, 96; Annotation 15 A.L.R.2d p. 247; Bo Kay Chan v. Gerdon Land Co., 103 Cal.App.2d 724, 726, 727, 728, 230 P.2d 1. However,......
-
Grace Co. v. Williams
...to deal with one entity and one alone were necessarily not required to deal or negotiate with any other. The case of Myers v. Louisiana & A. Ry. Co. (D.C.) 7 F.Supp. 92, cited by plaintiff, does not support plaintiff's position. The petition there alleged compliance with the requirements of......
-
SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 40, ETC. v. Virginian Ry. Co.
...by an act of Congress and local public officials are without authority or power to protect or enforce such rights. Myers v. Louisiana & A. Ry. Co. (D. C.) 7 F. Supp. 92, 97. It follows from what has been said that the complainants are entitled to an injunction, in substance, restraining the......