Gulf, M. & NR Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
Decision Date | 10 November 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 88.,88. |
Citation | 21 F. Supp. 282 |
Parties | GULF, M. & N. R. CO. v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
J. N. Flowers, of Jackson, Miss., Walter P. Armstrong and Benj. Goodman, Jr., both of Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiff.
Chas. N. Burch and H. D. Minor, both of Memphis, Tenn., and Chas. A. Helsell, of Chicago, Ill. (E. C. Craig, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for defendant.
The motion of the plaintiff railroad company for a preliminary injunction seeks to restrain the defendant railroad company from an alleged violation of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission (Finance Docket No. 9916, 193 I.C.C. 106), and to restrain the defendant from interference with the operation by plaintiff of its through freight trains, drawn by its own locomotives and in charge of its own crews between Bemis, Tenn., and Paducah, Ky., over the tracks of the defendant, pursuant to the provisions of a trackage contract between the parties of date June 7, 1933.
A decree for specific performance of this trackage contract is prayed by the plaintiff, especially as pertains to the provision therein for the continued operation by the plaintiff of its through freight trains, drawn by its own locomotives and in charge of crews selected by plaintiff from its own employees.
A certificate of public convenience and necessity, effective June 7, 1933, was issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission, authorizing the operation by plaintiff under trackage rights over the railroad of defendant in listed counties and places in Tennessee and Kentucky, and permitting the abandonment by the plaintiff of operation under trackage rights over the railroad of the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway, in the same territory.
In its answer, the defendant admits full performance by the plaintiff of its contract of June 7, 1933; and that, notwithstanding such compliance, it notified the plaintiff that on April 30, 1936, it would require the plaintiff to use employees of defendant in making up the crews for the operation of plaintiff's trains over defendant's tracks between Bemis and Paducah, and that it would deny plaintiff the use of defendant's lines unless the trains of plaintiff run over the designated route were manned by employees of the defendant railroad company.
The reasons given by the defendant for its action are that nearly all of its employees who operate freight trains are members of the affiliated Big Four Railroad Brotherhoods, namely the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, the Order of Railway Conductors, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, which have definitely decided through their respective officials, acting concertedly, that Illinois Central employees should be permitted to man all trains on the Illinois Central Railroad tracks between Jackson, Tenn., and Paducah, Ky., including the freight trains of plaintiff; that, unless the defendant yields to the demand of the Big Four Railroad Brotherhoods, the engineers, firemen, conductors, brakemen, and flagmen on its whole system of nearly 7,000 miles of railroad will refuse to work further for defendant; that it will be unable to supply their places, and that its operations "would thereby be brought to a standstill not only to the irreparable injury of defendant, but to the irreparable injury of the public, and also of the plaintiff."
To this averment, the defendant adds: "On the other hand, if defendant's employees are placed on said trains of plaintiff, transportation and traffic will be conducted as heretofore, as the train operatives of plaintiff are members of said four organizations and are bound by the decision of their Grand Lodges and Grand Officers, and will obey said decision."
Supporting affidavits of various officials of the railroad brotherhoods substantiate the precarious position of the defendant railroad company, should it fail to accede to their demands. These affidavits show that, should the Illinois Central Railroad Company permit the employees of the Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad Company to operate trains over the former's tracks, a strike vote will be taken among the membership of the railroad brotherhoods; with the opinion expressed by affiants that the vote of the employees would result in favor of a strike.
These affidavits show, further, that the manning of the Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad Company freight trains by Illinois Central Railroad Company regular employees is a very vital matter to the four railroad brotherhoods, involving seniority rights of Illinois Central employees for which the brotherhoods had contended long prior to the contract of June 7, 1933; and that "by long understanding, the said Illinois Central employees were entitled to man all trains operating over Illinois Central tracks," which right the Illinois Central Railroad Company refused to recognize, with the result that the chief executives of the brotherhoods, after investigation, decided jointly that Illinois Central employees should be permitted to man all trains on the Illinois Central tracks between Jackson, Tenn., and Paducah, Ky., "regardless of where they come from or which railroad's equipment is used."
The position of the Big Four Railroad Brotherhoods is well stated in the affidavit of T. S. Jackson, chairman of the general grievance committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen on the Illinois Central Railroad System. After stating the facts upon which this controversy arises, the affiant says:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mayflower Hotel Stock. P. Com. v. Mayflower Hotel Corp.
...582, 53 S.Ct. 731, 77 L. Ed. 1385; Bowen v. Hockley, 4 Cir., 1934, 71 F.2d 781, 786, 94 A.L.R. 856; Gulf, M. & N. R. Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., D.C.E.D.Tenn.1937, 21 F.Supp. 282, 295, appeal dismissed by stipulation of the parties, 6 Cir., 1940, 109 F.2d 1016. Furthermore, even a court b......
-
SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM. v. GLASS MARINE INDUS.
...879. 6 Defendant's Memorandum, p. 15. 7 Eccles v. Peoples Bank, 333 U.S. 426, 68 S.Ct. 641, 92 L.Ed. 784; Gulf, M. & N. R. Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co., D.C.Tenn., 21 F.Supp. 282; Central Kentucky Natural Gas Co. v. Railroad Commission, 290 U.S. 264, 54 S.Ct. 154, 78 L.Ed. 307; Skinner v.......
- United States v. Oley, 36966.
- GULF, MOBILE AND NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY