Betts v. Easley

• Citation: 161 Kan. 459,169 P.2d 831
• Decision Date: 08 June 1946
• Docket Number: 36483.
• Parties: BETTS et al. v. EASLEY et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Kansas

169 P.2d 831

161 Kan. 459

BETTS et al. v. EASLEY et al.

No. 36483.

Supreme Court of Kansas

June 8, 1946

Rehearing Denied July 6, 1946.

Appeal from the District Court, Wyandotte County; E. L. Fischer Judge.

Suit by Lucillous Betts and others against G. G. Easley and others to enjoin defendants as officers, national and local, of a labor organization which had been designated as the collective bargaining agent, from excluding eligible negro workmen from full participation in privileges incident to the Railway Labor Act and to restrain them from requiring negro workmen to belong to a separate lodge. From a judgment sustaining the defendants' demurrer to the petition, the plaintiffs appeal.

Judgment reversed with directions to overrule the demurrer.

Proviso in Kansas statute forbidding labor organizations to discriminate against, or bar or exclude from its membership any person because of his race or color, that the Act shall not apply to labor organizations within provisions of the Railway Labor Act, was inserted in recognition of the fact that transactions of organizations having to do with interstate commerce are covered by provisions of the Railway Labor Act, and does not indicate a legislative intent to permit racial discrimination in collective bargaining in organizations having to do with interstate commerce. Gen.St.Supp.1943, 44-801.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A primary purpose of the Railway Labor Act, enacted by Congress in the exercise of its power to regulate interstate commerce was to avoid interruptions of commerce, by promoting the orderly and peaceful settlement of labor disputes affecting railroads.

2. The Railway Labor Act firmly established labor's right of collective bargaining through representatives freely chosen by the employees in classified crafts or groups, without interference or coercion.

3. The person, labor union, or other organization chosen as the statutory representative of railway employees to negotiate with the carrier as to wages, hours of employment, working conditions, and other such matters, becomes thereby the sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent, and no minority group within the classified employees involved has the right to be specially represented in such negotiations.

4. In performing its functions as such statutory bargaining agent, a labor union or other organization is not to be regarded as a wholly private association of individuals free from all constitutional or statutory restraints to which public agencies are subjected.

5. The Railway Labor Act imposes upon the statutory representative of a classified craft or group, the duty to protect equally the interests of those whom it represents and not to discriminate arbitrarily against any such employees in matters affecting substantial rights.

6. A discrimination by such statutory representative against employees because of race or color, in matters within the purview of the Act, is arbitrary and unlawful.

7. The fact that membership in a labor union selected as statutory agent for collective bargaining is voluntary and not compulsory, does not relieve such agent from according equal privilege of participation and representation to all employees whom it represents in matters within the purview of the Act.

8. The fact that they had participated in the election at which a collective bargaining representative was chosen, does not estop employees affected from asserting their right to such equal privileges of participation and representation.

9. In an action by Negro workmen, employed in the railroad shops of an interstate carrier, to enjoin the continuance of alleged discriminatory acts by the officers of a labor union which had been selected, under the Railway Labor Act, as the collective bargaining agent of the employees involved, the plaintiffs alleged that they are denied privileges of participation and representation equal to those accorded to white employees, in matters within the purview of the Act; that the constitution of the union provides that Negro employees may only be admitted to membership in 'separate lodges' which 'shall be under the jurisdiction of and represented by the delegate of the nearest white local in any meeting of the Joint Protective Board Federation of Convention where delegates may be seated'; that they and other Negro employees are not permitted to attend meetings of the local lodge of the union or to vote on the election of its officers or in the selection of those who are to represent it, nor to participate in any determination of policy in matters subject to negotiation with the carrier by the statutory bargaining agent. These and other allegations are more fully set out in the opinion. The case is here upon appeal by the plaintiffs from an order sustaining a demurrer to the petition. The allegations of the petition are examined, and it is held:

(a) The acts complained of constitute a violation of individual rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;

(b) State courts have not only the power but the duty to enforce rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States when such issues are involved in proceedings properly before them;

(c) Equitable relief by injunction was properly invoked under the facts as alleged.

William H. Towers and Elmer C. Jackson, Jr., both of Kansas City (Roy C. Garvin, of Kansas City, on the brief), for appellants.

William E. Carson, of Kansas City (Arthur L. Ross, of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellees.

HOCH Justice.

The primary question here presented is whether a labor organization which has been regularly designated, under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., as the collective bargaining agent for all the workmen involved, can lawfully exclude eligible Negro workmen from full participation in privileges incident to theAct and admit them to membership only in a 'separate lodge' which 'shall be under the jurisdiction of and represented by the delegate of the nearest white local'. Negro workmen affected--railway carmen--sought to enjoin such action by the labor union, so designated as the bargaining agent, and named as defendants the officers, national and local, of the union, and also the employer, the railway company. The officers of the local lodge of the union demurred to the petition, the demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiffs appeal.

The issue being here upon demurrer, all allegations of fact well pleaded in the petition must be accepted as true. It will suffice to summarize the allegations. The plaintiffs--six in number--are Negro employees of the Santa Fe Railway Company in its Argentine shops in Kansas City, Kansas. They bring the action in their own behalf and--under the authority of Sec. 60-413, G.S. 1935--in behalf of and for the benefit of the other one hundred or more Negro employees similarly situated. Formal averments relating to the identity of those named as officers of the defendant labor unions and other such matters need not be recited.

The workmen employed by the Santa Fe in the Argentine shops were formerly organized into what was known as a company union, and during the existence of the company union, Negro employees were given full membership in the union along with the white employees. They were in no way discriminated against and participated fully in the election of officers and in the transaction of the business of the union.

In November, 1943, in harmony with procedure prescribed in the Railway Labor Act, the Mediation Board, constituted under that Act, conducted in the Argentine shops an election by secret ballot, participated in by all employees involved, for the purpose of determining what labor organization should become the authorized collective bargaining representative of such employees in negotiations with the employer, as contemplated by the Act. As a result of this election, the Grand Lodge Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America was chosen and officially designated as such collective bargaining agent. Pursuant to the requirements of the law, the Mediation Board certified the result to the railway company and subsequent thereto the officers of the Grand Lodge sent their representative, Mott L. Fox, to Kansas City for the purpose of organizing a local lodge 'for and on behalf of all the employees of the Argentine shops of the defendant Railroad Carrier'. The activities of said representative Fox resulted in the organization of Local Lodge No. 850 of the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America. In soliciting memberships in the local lodge, Fox assured the plaintiffs and the other Negro employees that they would be entitled to full membership in Local Lodge No. 850. Pursuant to these promises, plaintiffs and those whom they represent in this action 'took out membership in the said Local Lodge No. 850.' In this connection the petition alleges: 'As it subsequently developed, the defendants herein named, had no intention at the time they secured these plaintiffs' memberships, of admitting nor integrating these plaintiffs nor the rest of the Negro employees at the Santa Fe shops into the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America.'

Contrary to the assurances heretofore recited, Fox posted a notice on January 20, 1944, informing the employees of the Argentine shops that a meeting would be held on January 20, 1944, at a designated time and place 'to form a Santa Fe Local for white employees only' and that a meeting would be held on January 25, 1944, 'to form a separate local lodge for Negro employees only'.

Since the organization of Local Lodge No. 850, the defendants have refused to admit the plaintiffs and other Negro employees to full membership in the local lodge although they have paid their membership...