Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. UNITED TRANSPORTATION U., 72-1440.

Decision Date11 December 1972
Docket NumberNo. 72-1440.,72-1440.
PartiesBROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Lee Leibik, Chicago, Ill., Ruth Weyand, Leibik & Weyand, Chicago, Ill., Robert Rotatori, Gold, Rotatori, Messerman & Hanna, Cleveland, Ohio, on brief, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Melvin S. Schwarzwald, Cleveland, Ohio, Norton N. Newborn, Cleveland, Ohio, Robert Hart, General Counsel, United Transportation Union, Cleveland, Ohio, on brief, for defendants-appellees.

Before WEICK, EDWARDS and KENT, Circuit Judges.

EDWARDS, Circuit Judge.

This appeal arises out of the merger of four railroad unions into the United Transportation Union. This suit was filed in the names of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen and the Switchmen's Union of North America, and of 22 small local unions formerly affiliated therewith, against United Transportation Union and the Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. The merger of the four unions actually occurred January 1, 1969. This suit was filed over two years later, in June of 1971. The actions complained about took place during April and June of 1971.

The dispute concerns the decision of the president of the new UTU to merge some 64 small local unions into larger locals because of the cost of financing one UTU convention delegate for each of the preexisting small locals. The plaintiffs in this action seek injunctive relief from the District Court against the merger of the small locals, claiming that the merger violated express terms of the Unification Agreement. Plaintiffs assert that the District Court has jurisdiction of the case under § 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) (1970).

The District Judge refused temporary relief on condition that the delegates who wanted to attend the convention be allowed to do so. The record shows that these delegates were allowed to attend the convention and vote therein, but that the convention rejected a motion to pay their expenses. Subsequent to the UTU convention the District Judge held a conference in chambers where it was agreed among the parties that various documents would be submitted for receipt into evidence and consideration by the court. There does not appear to have been a request by the plaintiffs for the presentation of oral evidence. Subsequently the District Judge handed down a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing the cause of action.

He held that the preexisting international unions had gone out of existence due to the merger, and he thereupon dismissed them as parties. He also held that the court did not have jurisdiction under § 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, supra, since the 22 locals only represented railroad employees, and hence were subject to the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. (1970). He also held that the mergers did not constitute trusteeships and that appellants had not exhausted their remedies by appeal to the Board of Directors and that that was the correct method of appeal.

Appellees claim that the District Judge's finding in relation to lack of jurisdiction under § 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, supra, is supported by the Supreme Court's opinion in Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, 89 S.Ct. 1109, 22 L.Ed.2d 344 (1969).

Appellants claim that the two international unions named as plaintiffs survived the merger for purposes of this suit. They also seem to assert that unions of railroad employees can sue under § 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, supra, for violations of a contract between labor unions pertaining to merger, since such an action is not provided for in the Railway Labor Act.

Examination of the Unification Agreement and Constitution of the United...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Kaschak v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • May 26, 1983
    ...and this Court has similarly refused to draw blanket analogies between the two Acts, see Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. United Transportation Union, 471 F.2d 8, 9 (6th Cir.1972), the Supreme Court has often looked to the LMRA and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) i......
  • Raus v. Brotherhood of Ry. Carmen of U.S. and Canada
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • November 10, 1981
    ...Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, 376, 89 S.Ct. 1109, 1114, 22 L.Ed.2d 344 (1969); Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. United Transportation Union, 471 F.2d 8, 9 (6th Cir. 1972). Thus, federal courts do not have jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 185 over suits brought by ......
  • Davenport v. International Broth. of Teamsters, AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • February 2, 1999
    ...v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Int'l, 693 F.2d 899, 902-03 (9th Cir.1982); Raus, 663 F.2d at 794; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen v. United Transp. Union, 471 F.2d 8, 9 (6th Cir.1972). Neither plaintiffs' original complaint, nor their amended complaint, expressly stated any cause of action aga......
  • Corbin v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., C-77-0029-CBR.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • May 25, 1977
    ...the parties involved are common carriers and employees governed by the Railway Labor Act. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. United Transportation Union, 471 F.2d 8, 9 (6 Cir. 1972); Dones v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., supra, 408 F.Supp. at 1046; Bell v. Chesapeake and Ohio Ra......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT