BROTHERHOOD OF LOC. F. & E. v. DETROIT & TOLEDO SHORE LR CO.

• Decision Date: 22 January 1970
• Docket Number: No. 19556.,19556.
• Parties: BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The DETROIT AND TOLEDO SHORE LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

421 F.2d 660 (1970)

BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The DETROIT AND TOLEDO SHORE LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19556.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

January 22, 1970.

John M. Curphey, Toledo, Ohio, for defendant-appellant; Robison, Curphey & O'Connell, Toledo, Ohio, Robert L. Livesay, Detroit, Mich., on brief.

Richard M. Colasurd, Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellee, Mulholland, Hickey & Lyman, Toledo, Ohio, of counsel.

Before EDWARDS, CELEBREZZE and COMBS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In 1943 the parties to this proceeding signed an agreement known as the Eastern Diesel Agreement of 1943, under which Shore Line undertook to employ firemen on practically all diesel engine runs. The agreement had no termination date. Neither party has ever explicitly served notice of the revocation of this agreement, and up to the point of the instant litigation, firemen had in fact been employed on diesel engine runs, except to the degree they were eliminated by the national arbitration award, dated November 26, 1963, handed down by Arbitration Board #282 established in 1963 pursuant to Public Law 88-108, 88th Cong., 77 Stat. 132 (1963). Under the terms of this award, Shore Line firemen were eliminated on Shore Line diesel engines inside the state of Michigan, but were kept on such engines inside the state of Ohio because of the Ohio "full crew" law. This state law requires the use of firemen on all freight runs on "main tracks" and switch engines in Ohio. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. §§ 4999.07 and 4999.08 (1954).

In 1967 and 1968 Shore Line made certain physical revisions of its Lang yard, the southern terminus of its line in Ohio straddling the Michigan state line. In so doing Shore Line created a hump yard for automatic classification of freight cars, added some switch tracks, and redefined the former "main" tracks in Ohio so that the previous "main" tracks now became "yard" tracks. Shore Line then served notice that it no longer was going to employ firemen on the previous "main" tracks within the state of Ohio.

The Brotherhood thereupon promptly filed this petition for injunctive relief alleging a violation of the 1943 Agreement and a failure on the part of Shore Line to follow the notice and mediation procedures established by federal law. 45 U.S.C. §§ 152, 156 (1964).

The United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, granted the relief sought by petitioner. His opinion stated in part:

"Briefly stated, the contentions of the defendant are that when a new contract was negotiated between the parties in 1953, it completely superseded all former contracts, including the Eastern Diesel Agreement of 1943, which required the defendant to maintain firemen in diesels; that arbitration Award 282 enabled the defendant to abolish these positions, with limited exceptions, and it did do so, with respect to the runs in question, but the Ohio full crew law prevented this abolition from becoming effective; that the reconstruction of the switch yards made the Ohio full crew law no longer applicable to these runs, and defendant was thus at liberty to abolish them; and that the dispute involved here involves interpretation of the terms of the contract between the parties, and hence is a `minor dispute\' over which this Court has no jurisdiction.

"Considering these matters in the order above presented, it is the Court\'s conclusion that the

...