Brotherhood of R. Trainmen v. NATIONAL M. BOARD
Decision Date | 15 February 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 8311.,8311. |
Citation | 135 F.2d 780 |
Parties | BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN et al. v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. James Metzenbaum, of Cleveland, Ohio, with whom Mr. Herbert G. Pillen, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. Robert L. Stern, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, for appellee National Mediation Board.
Mr. George P. Hoover, of Washington, D. C., for appellees other than National Mediation Board.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and VINSON and RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices.
This is an appeal from a decree of the United States District Court dismissing appellants' complaint. The controversy, of long standing, is primarily between the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, which we shall call "the Trainmen", and the Order of Railway Conductors of America, which we shall call "the Conductors." The Chicago & North Western Railway Company, as a sort of stakeholder, is concerned in a lesser degree, although it is not a party.
The case concerns Section 2, Fourth and Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act, as amended,1 the pertinent parts of which are as follows:
The history of the dispute is contained in elaborate findings of the Board and the District Court. Abbreviated for the purposes at hand it is as follows:
For some time prior to the spring of 1920 the Railway maintained twelve switching yards in and around Chicago, known collectively as the Chicago Switching District, all of the yard men of which, including the yard foremen, were represented by the Trainmen. On or about April 3, 1920, an outlaw strike of yard employees occurred, completely tying up yard service in the Chicago District. In spite of the efforts of the Trainmen, the strikers refused to return to work and other yard men under its jurisdiction employed in other yards of the Railway outside of Chicago, though requested by it to do so, refused to take their places. After two weeks the Trainmen, recognizing its inability to perform its contract with the Railway and to insure protection to the yard service, appealed to the Conductors to come to its aid by taking over the contract covering the work of the yard foremen in the Chicago District.
Negotiations between the Trainmen, the Conductors and the Railway followed, as a result of which the Chicago Switching District was incorporated into the Galena and Wisconsin Divisions of the Railway. The existing agreement between the Trainmen and the Railway governing rates of pay and working conditions was voluntarily surrendered by the Trainmen and turned over to the road men; the road conductors, represented by the Conductors, to do the work of yard foremen and the road brakemen, represented by the Trainmen, to do the work of yard helpers. The contract was to continue until revised or abrogated by agreement.
Shortly thereafter, an adjudication by the Trainmen and the Conductors as to the seniority rights of road conductors doing yard foremen's work, resulted in a joint ruling that, under the agreement, the positions in the yard were to be considered as reclassified and the jobs formerly known as "foremen's positions" were to be filled by conductors — specifically, "that all positions in the Chicago Switching District known as `Foremen's positions' prior to April 21, 1920, are now conductors' positions" —; and the jobs formerly known as "helper positions" were to be filled by road brakemen; and that the members of each class were entitled to positions on the seniority rosters as such. The result of all of this was to transfer the yard foremen's work in the Chicago District to the Conductors of the Railway working on the Galena and Wisconsin Divisions, and the yard helpers' work to the brakemen of the Railway so employed, with the option on the part of the conductors to interchange between road work and yard work in accordance with their certain seniority rights.
This arrangement continued for about eight years until 1928 when, at the Cleveland Convention of the Trainmen, a resolution was adopted to the effect that since the 1920 agreement had served its purpose, the Trainmen desired that it be cancelled and that the employment status in the Chicago District be restored as it had existed prior to the unlawful strike. Representations to this effect were made to the Railway Company and to the Conductors. The latter opposed any change, and a conference between the Railway, the Trainmen, and the Conductors was had. No change was made. Two years later, notice was given to the Railway of the purpose of the Trainmen to call a strike unless its views were adopted and the Yard closed to the road conductors. In answer to this the Railway, in a full and fair review of the respective rights of the parties as established by the contractors and its interpretation by the two unions, gave notice to the Conductors and to the Trainmen that it was not the purpose of the Company to "close" the terminals to conductors, but instead to respect and protect the rights of all parties to the contract. Summarizing his investigation of the question, the President of the Railway said: "The preponderance of evidence proves conclusively that the O. R. C. has been recognized as having the right to represent and legislate for conductors performing yard service in the Chicago Switching District in the handling of schedule negotiations, grievance cases, as well as all matters concerning conductors since the agreement of April 21, 1920, and I must hold that such right has not been taken away from that organization through the operation of any agreements or contracts."
From 1930 to 1935 the Railway continued to recognize the Conductors as the representative of the conductors working as yard foremen and to recognize the Trainmen as the representative of the brakemen working as yard men. Separate contracts were made with the Conductors and Trainmen accordingly. The Trainmen recognized the right of the Conductors to represent the conductor employees in yard as well as road work and the Conductors recognized the Trainmen's right to represent the brakemen engaged in either. In 1935, the Trainmen requested the National Mediation Board to make an investigation or to hold an election and to make a certification to the effect that the Trainmen was entitled to represent all the yard men employed by the Railway. The Board accepted the "invocation" and appointed a mediator to investigate and report. The latter found that there was not a "representation" dispute within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act. Thereupon the Board ordered a public hearing, with opportunity to all concerned to present evidence, and after a long and exhaustive proceeding determined that there was "here no dispute such as is described in Section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act"; that such controversy as existed arose out of the claim of the Trainmen "that the men now classified as road conductors who work as yard foremen in the Chicago Switching District are also yardmen and therefore must be included within the craft or class of yardmen"; that ; that the real object of the Trainmen is "to add to the craft or class of which it is the acknowledged representative some 100 or so conductors who do yard foremen's work in the Chicago District."
In conclusion the Board said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Switchmen Union of North America v. National Mediation Board
...See Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. National Mediation Board, 66 App.D.C. 375, 88 F.2d 757; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. National Mediation Board, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 135 F.2d 780. A review by the federal district courts of the Board's determination is not necessary to preserve ......
-
State ex rel. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Russell
... ... 594; 30 C.J.S., ... 399, sec. 58; Grand International Brotherhood of ... Locomotive Engineers v. Mills, 31 P.2d 971, 43 Ariz ... 379; ... 30 C.J.S. 597, ... 598. (17) The Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen is not an ... employee of the Relator and has no justiciable interest in ... up under the Railway Labor Act. The National Railroad ... Adjustment Board does not have the power to adjudicate ... ...
-
General Committee of Adjustment of Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers Forr v. Co
...to cover only those disputes entailing an election by employees of their representatives. See Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. National Mediation Board, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 259, 135 F.2d 780, 782. In an election case the Board may have to make a preliminary determination as to the eligibilit......
-
Switchmen's Union of N. America v. National M. Board
...of Railway and Steamship Clerks, etc., v. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co., 6 Cir., 94 F.2d 97. 22 Section 1, Fifth. 23 ___ U.S.App.D.C. ___, 135 F.2d 780, decided February 15, 1943. 24 See Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed., 1939); 10 Words and Phrases, Perm.Ed., p. 322; 7 Words a......