BROTHERHOOD OF RY. AND SS CLERKS, ETC. v. Texas & NOR Co.
| Decision Date | 19 April 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 314.,314. |
| Citation | 25 F.2d 873 |
| Parties | BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS, EXPRESS AND STATION EMPLOYEES, SOUTHERN PAC. LINES IN TEXAS AND LOUISIANA, et al. v. TEXAS & N. O. R. CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Fulbright, Crooker & Freeman, of Houston, Tex. (C. G. Stearns and J. H. Crooker, both of Houston, Tex., of counsel), for plaintiffs.
Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, of Houston, Tex. (J. H. Tallichet, Clarence Carter, and C. R. Wharton, all of Houston, Tex., of counsel), for defendants.
The court having in this cause on July 29, 1927, issued a temporary injunction, and on February 11, 1928, a contempt order, defendants thereafter filed their motion to dissolve and vacate both. Thereafter, on March 12, 1928, the cause came on for final hearing on the merits, at which time full evidence and arguments were presented and heard, and the matter now stands for disposition of the defendants' motions above and on the merits, of plaintiffs' prayer for permanent injunction.
On this hearing the evidence more abundantly even than on the previous hearings established a deliberate disregard and violation of the terms of the statute, and, after its issuance, of the temporary injunction, by the defendant company through a calculated and studied interference, both with the self-organization, and the designation of representatives by the employees.
In addition, the genesis and motive of the entire activity of the defendants in organizing, promoting, and maintaining the association, and in endeavoring to disrupt and unseat the Brotherhood as representatives, is made clear and plain through a letter written by Mr. Lull, one of the defendants in the contempt proceeding and vice president of the railroad company, to Mr. McDonald, its president on May 24, 1927, prior to the activities complained of in this suit.
That letter in brief declared that there was pending from the general committee of the national organization of the Brotherhood of Railway Clerks a request for an increase of 10 cents per hour; that it was practically certain, if the matter went to arbitration, an award would be rendered increasing the pay roll $340,000 per annum; that he proposed to refuse arbitration upon the question of the right of the Brotherhood to represent the employees, and stated: "This will permit us to get away from the interference of this organization, and if successful in this, I am satisfied we can make settlement with our own employees at a cost not to exceed $75,000 per annum."1
Every proceeding taken thereafter sprang from and may be read in the light of this program, which explains the vigorous and determined effort to seat the company union as the sole representative of the employees, and gives full color to the persistent efforts thereafter to destroy the influence and activity of the Brotherhood. It may therefore be affirmatively and easily found here that the fact findings made on the two preceding hearings before this court, that the defendant company was acting in direct and open disregard of the provisions of the statute, should be without hesitation reaffirmed.
The defendants say, however, that, conceding these findings to be correct, they furnish no basis for injunctive relief. They say the statute which they are disregarding is a mere congressional gesture, has not the force of law, confers no rights, imposes no penalties, provides no remedies, and that the case stands here as did the case of Pennsylvania Federation v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 267 U. S. 204, 45 S. Ct. 307, 69 L. Ed. 574.
They argue that the Supreme Court in that decision has determined the very question here, that it has construed a statute having equivalent terms with this as inoperative, and not enforceable by court decree, and that that decision controls this case. That they are in error as to the effect of that case I think entirely plain. What was decided there was that the decisions of the Labor Board could not be enforced by injunction; the court saying:
What the complainants are seeking here to enforce is the century-old right of representation, a right granted to the employees by Congress in mandatory language, that they should select their own representatives without interference by the Railroad Company. This and nothing more is here attempted, and I think it plain that the question is res integra and has never been before adjudicated, except in the preliminary opinion in this case.2
So viewing it, I believe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Labor Relations Board v. Bradford Dyeing Ass
...74 L.Ed. 1034, affirming, 5 Cir., 33 F.2d 13, affirming Brotherhood of Railway Clerks v. Texas & N.O.R. Co., D.C., 24 F.2d 426; Id., D.C., 25 F.2d 873; Id., D.C., 25 F.2d 876, 877, 878. Sixth. The 'Sit Down.' 8 National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Corp., 306 U.S. 240, 59 S.Ct. 490, 83......
-
Russell v. Edgewood Independent School Dist., 14497
...of such rights as are granted thereby. Brotherhood of Ry. and S. S. Clerks, etc., v. Texas & N.O.R. Co., D.C., 24 F.2d 426; Id., 5 Cir, 25 F.2d 873, 876, affirmed sub nom. Texas & N.O.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Ry. and S.S. Clerks, 5 Cir., 33 F.2d 13; 281 U.S. 548, 50 S.Ct. 427, 74 L.Ed. 1034......
-
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. Lovvorn
...provide, and, as amended, will be enforced. 1 Brotherhood of Ry. & Steamship Clerks v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., D.C., 24 F.2d 426; Id., D.C., 25 F.2d 873, affirmed Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Ry. Clerks, 5 Cir., 33 F.2d 13, Id., 281 U.S. 548, 50 S.Ct. 427, 74 L.Ed. 2 Franks Bros. Co. v. N. L. R. B......
-
Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Exp. Agency
...in the Railway Clerks case (Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks v. Texas & N. O. R. Co.), in the District Court, 24 F.2d 426; 25 F.2d 873; in the Circuit Court of Appeals, 5 Cir., 33 F.2d 13; and the Supreme Court, 281 U.S. 548, 50 S.Ct. 427, 74 L.Ed. 1034. The presumption of validi......