Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 6491
| Decision Date | 01 June 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 6491,6491 |
| Citation | 231 S.W.2d 451 |
| Parties | BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN et al. v. TEXAS & P. RY. CO. et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Kennedy, Levee & Lee, Texarkana, for appellants.
Robertson, Jackson, Payne, Lancaster & Walker, Dallas, Atchley & Vance, Texarkana, for appellees.
The appellees, The Texas & Pacific Railway company and Guy A. Thompson, Trustee of the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, instituted this suit against the appellants, officers of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and the members of said Trainmen's Union employed by appellees in the Texarkana Yard, in the district court of Bowie County for a declaratory judgment with respect to a certain working agreement between appellees and appellants employed in said railroad yard. The district court took jurisdiction of the case and construed certain portions of the contract adversely to appellants, and held that Section 3 of the memorandum of agreement dated June 30, 1933, between appellants and appellees was in full force and effect, and that the appellants were not entitled to extra compensation for certain labor performed by them for appellees. Appellants by their pleadings vigorously attacked the jurisdiction of the district court to hear and determine the issues involved, the contention being that any controversy arising with respect to the terms of the working agreement between appellants and appellees was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, hereinafter referred to as NRAB.
Point two advanced by appellants is: 'Since the matter in dispute involved train and yard-service employees of carriers within the provision of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) and since the NRAB has exclusive jurisdiction of this type of controversy the court erred in overruling defendants' (appellants') plea to its jurisdiction.'
This point presents the controlling question here. There is no dispute in the facts. They are stipulated in the court below. The controversy between the parties arises with respect to the construction of a working agreement between them in the Texarkana railroad yard. The appellants, employees of the two appellees in the railroad yard at Texarkana, are making claim for extra compensation which they assert is due them under the terms of their working agreement with the railroads. To determine this issue it was necessary for the district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilburn v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. of Tex.
...323; Order of Ry. Conductors of America v. Southern Ry. Co., 339 U.S. 255, 70 S.Ct. 585, 94 L.Ed. 811; Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 451. However, the leading authorities relied on by appellant Moore v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 1941, 312 U.S. 63......
-
Isgett v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
...to be on all-fours with this. Decisions of other state courts which are to the same effect are: Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 1950, 231 S.W.2d 451, and Roberts v. Western Pac. R. Co., 1951, 104 Cal.App.2d 816, 232 P.2d 560. It is of interest that some cou......
-
Davis v. Southern Ry. Co., 6 Div. 152
...recently had occasion to consider the question under discussion. We cite these decisions as follows: Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 451; Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 5 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 599; Pisc......
-
Choate v. Grand Intern. Broth. of Locomotive Engineers
...R. Co., 303 N.Y. 411, 103 N.E.2d 532 (certiorari denied 343 U.S. 977, 72 S.Ct. 1073, 97 L.Ed. 1369); Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 451 (no writ). It is equally well settled, however, that both the state and federal courts may entertain a su......