Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 November 1962
• Docket Number: No. 13855.,13855.
• Citation: 310 F.2d 513
• Parties: BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

310 F.2d 513 (1962)

BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 13855.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

November 28, 1962.

Howard Neitzert, Martin M. Lucente, Chicago, Ill., Hermon M. Wells, Philadelphia, Pa., James R. Wolfe, Chicago, Ill. (Sidley, Austin, Burgess & Smith, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for defendants-appellants.

Burke Williamson, Chicago, Ill., Milton Kramer, Washington, D. C., Lester P. Schoene, Schoene & Kramer, Washington, D. C., for all plaintiffs-appellees.

Harold N. McLaughlin, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellee Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.

Harold C. Heiss, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellee Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen.

Harry Wilmarth, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for plaintiff-appellee Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen.

Edward B. Henslee, Jr., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.

Before SCHNACKENBERG, CASTLE and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.

SCHNACKENBERG, Circuit Judge.

The parties to this appeal, as described in the amended complaint and in the opinion in case No. 13876 this day filed herein, continue to be referred to in this opinion as the Organizations and the Carriers.

On August 8, 1962 the district court, by its final order, denied a second motion for a preliminary injunction made by the Organizations, which sought to enjoin the Carriers from putting into effect promulgations of revisions in work rules by the Carriers, dated July 17, 1962 and August 6, 1962, effective August 16, 1962. By the same order the court dismissed the amended complaint of the Organizations because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

On the same day the Organizations appealed from both actions of the court.

Also on August 8, 1962, the Organizations filed in the district court a motion for injunction "pending the hearing and determining of the appeal of plaintiffs to" this court from the order dismissing the complaint as amended, to restrain the Carriers from putting into effect the promulgation of August 6, 1962, and from making the changes therein referred to. On August 10, 1962, the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and required and approved the Organizations' injunction bond of $10,000. On the same day the court entered an order granting the injunction during the pendency of the Organizations' appeal and the Carriers took the instant appeal therefrom.

On August 15, 1962, we denied a motion of the Carriers to dissolve and vacate that injunction and, on August 29, 1962, we required the Organizations to furnish an additional bond of $90,000 as further security therefor.

Among its findings of fact, the district court made the following:

"VII.

"If, as claimed, the terms of the Promulgation of August 6, 1962 would be installed unlawfully, the damage to the plaintiffs and the employees they represent would be impossible to calculate and would be irreparable. Some of the injury to plaintiffs and the employees represented by them cannot be calculated in money.

"VIII.

"The rights claimed by the plaintiffs for the employees they represent do not merely concern rates of pay, job assignments and other rules, and working conditions, but involve also the discharge of thousands of employees from positions long held by them, and the dislocation of many others, and their families, from their homes and communities.

"IX.

"The rates of pay, rules, and working conditions which the Promulgation of August 6, 1962 would abrogate or modify have been agreed to by the plaintiffs and the railroads on a continuing basis through collective bargaining. The granting of an injunction pending appeal will temporarily continue in effect such rates of pay, rules, and working conditions agreed to until the Court of Appeals can review the legality of the threat to put into effect the terms of said Promulgation." (Italics supplied.)

* * * * * *

"XI.

"The Court has inquired into and considered the equities of the parties herein and has further considered the equities of the general public as they would be affected by this matter. The Court has balanced the equities and found the equities of the plaintiffs and the general public greater than those of the defendants herein."

Among six conclusions of law adopted by the district court are the following:

"4. The equities in favor of maintaining the status quo during the pendency of plaintiffs\' appeal substantially outweigh the equities against maintaining the status quo.

"5. The jurisdiction of this Court to grant an injunction during the pendency of this appeal exists under the provisions of Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Judicial Code and the inherent powers of the Court."

1. Rule 62(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Rule 62(c), provides:

"When an appeal is taken from an interlocutory or final judgment * * * denying an injunction, the court in its discretion may * * * grant an injunction during the pendency of the appeal upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as it considers proper for the security of the rights of the adverse party. * *"

Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C.A. § 151a) states as one of its purposes:

"* * * (4) to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions; * *."

The district court is a federal court of original jurisdiction and enjoys inherent equitable powers to be used in the exercise of its judicial discretion. It was by virtue of this inherent power that the court issued the injunction pending appeal, which is intended to prevent injuries so irreparable pending appeal to this court that a decision in favor of the Organizations in (Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers et al. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. et al., 7 Cir., 310 F.2d 503) "would be but an empty victory." Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 363 U.S. 528, 80 S.Ct. 1326, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435. In that case, the court said, at 534, 80 S.Ct. at 1330:

"It is true that preventing the Railroad from instituting the change imposed upon it the burden of maintaining what may be a less efficient and more costly operation. The balancing of these competing claims of irreparable hardship is, however, the traditional function of the equity court, the exercise of which is reviewable only for abuse of discretion. * * *"

We recognized the power of a federal court to grant an injunction to retain the status quo in major disputes on railroads (which is the kind involved here) in Hilbert v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 7 Cir., 290 F.2d 881, 884 (1961).

2. However, even though the district court had the inherent equitable power to grant the injunction pending appeal, the Carriers in this court contend that the proceedings involve a labor dispute within the terms of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq., and that §§ 1 and 7 (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 101 and 107) of that Act prohibit the granting of injunctive relief in a labor dispute except in "strict conformity with the provisions of the Act; among such provisions is the requirement that the court find that unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed or have been committed and will be continued unless restrained", and they also rely upon §§ 4 and 8 of that Act (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 104 and 108). The Carriers point out that this litigation involves a labor dispute as defined by § 13(c), chapter 6 of that Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 113(c) ch. 6). They emphasize § 1 (§ 101), which provides:

"No court of the United States, as defined in this chapter, shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except in a strict conformity with the provisions of this chapter; nor shall any such restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction be issued contrary to the public policy declared in this chapter."

They also quote from § 4 (§ 104)¹ and a part of § 7 (§ 107)² of the same Act.

The Organizations take issue with these contentions, and particularly they assert that § 4, supra, "is not applicable because it prohibits injunctions against conduct unrelated to the conduct enjoined by the injunction which is the subject of this appeal." They also state that § 7 "limits injunctions against conduct unrelated to the conduct enjoined by the injunction pending appeal."

The Organizations rely upon Hilbert v. Pennsylvania R. Co., ante 516, as sustaining the proposition that the Norris-LaGuardia Act does not prevent the granting of an injunction to require an employer to retain the status quo.

Confronted with these conflicting contentions of the parties, we realize that our opinion in No. 13876, 310 F.2d 503, when followed by the issuance of our mandate, will dispose of that appeal in this court.

Does the Norris-LaGuardia Act bar the pending injunction against the Carriers? We have made a thorough examination of the Act and its pertinent legislative history. The overall purpose of the Act was stated by Congress in a most unusual manner. In § 2 of the Act itself, 29 U.S.C.A. § 102, under the heading "Public policy in labor matters declared", enacted in 1932, Congress declared that in

"* * * the interpretation of this chapter and in determining the jurisdiction and authority of the courts of the United States, as such jurisdiction and authority are defined and limited in this chapter, the public policy of the United States is declared as follows:

"Whereas under prevailing economic conditions, developed with the aid of governmental authority for owners of property to organize in the corporate and other forms of ownership association, the individual unorganized worker is commonly helpless to exercise actual liberty of contract and to protect his freedom of labor, and thereby to obtain acceptable terms and

...