BROTHERHOOD OF RY. AND SS CLERKS, ETC. v. Texas & NOR Co., No. 314.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
Writing for the CourtHUTCHESON
Citation25 F.2d 876
PartiesBROTHERHOOD 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.
Docket NumberNo. 314.
Decision Date19 April 1928

25 F.2d 876 (1928)

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.

No. 314.

District Court, S. D. Texas, at Houston.

April 19, 1928.


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.

HUTCHESON, District Judge.

This is a motion to vacate or modify a contempt order entered in this court on February 11, 1928, upon the grounds and for the reasons set out in the report of this cause in 24 F.(2d) 426.

Defendants contend: (1) That the injunction was improvidently granted. (2) That the defendants did not violate the injunction. (3) That the contempt order exceeded the power and jurisdiction of this court.

The first point, in connection with the trial on the merits, I have considered and disposed of adversely to defendants by making a temporary injunction heretofore issued permanent. See opinion, Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, etc., et al. v. Texas & N. O. R. R. Co. et al. (D. C.) 25 F. (2d) 873.

25 F.2d 877

The second point, that the injunction was not violated, I think wholly untenable. It seems to be rested by counsel upon an entire misapprehension of the terms of the statute, and a failure to appreciate its effect and scope as a continuing obligation. Its corrective force may not be defeated by an act or series of acts. If it has any virtue, it protects an employee in his right to self-organization, and the selection of his representatives always. There never comes a time under that statute when the defendant perfects the right to force upon employees any representative of their choosing, whereas here the record teems with evidences not only of contracts between the railroad company and the association for sole representation, but of continuing acts on the part of the company designed and tending to disrupt, disintegrate, and destroy the brotherhood, while establishing in the seats of the mighty the association.

One of the association's chairmen, all of whom are chief clerks to the management, testified that the growth of the association had been due to its recognition by the railroad and the refusal to recognize the brotherhood, and he naively remarked that if this suit went in favor of the company, the association would be able to take complete control, whereas, if it went the other way, the association would fall; while others testified that, if left to a vote uninfluenced by the company the employees would not select the association as representative, while all the other testimony established the continuing character of the interference by the defendant company, in the support and maintenance of the company union for its benefit and advantage and the barring out of any and all other representation.

While I think the continuing character of the obligation not to interfere which the statute imposes on the company completely refutes defendants'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Bradford Dyeing Ass, No. 588
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 20, 1940
    ...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 L.Ed. 627, 123 A.L.R. 599......
  • Mitchell v. Robert De Mario Jewelry, Inc., No. 17068.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • November 7, 1958
    ...v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 69 S.Ct. 497, 93 L.Ed. 599. Cf. Brotherhood of Ry. & S. S. Clerks v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., D.C., 25 F.2d 876, affirmed 5 Cir., 33 F.2d 13. The Texas & N. O. R. Co. case and McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co. case involved situations where prior decrees......
  • BROTHERHOOD OF RY. AND SS CLERKS, ETC. v. Texas & NOR Co., No. 314.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • April 19, 1928
    ...to have the right to continue operations in interstate commerce protected from activities of persons who would seek to prevent that 25 F.2d 876 operation, by inducing persons not to work for them. Both rights are imponderable and intangible, but neither less real and substantial than the Fi......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Riverside Mfg. Co., No. 9643.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • May 31, 1941
    ...shall choose another representative or representatives." Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks v. Texas & N. O. R. Co. et al., D.C., 25 F.2d 876,...
4 cases
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Bradford Dyeing Ass, No. 588
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 20, 1940
    ...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 L.Ed. 627, 123 A.L.R. 599......
  • Mitchell v. Robert De Mario Jewelry, Inc., No. 17068.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • November 7, 1958
    ...v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 69 S.Ct. 497, 93 L.Ed. 599. Cf. Brotherhood of Ry. & S. S. Clerks v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., D.C., 25 F.2d 876, affirmed 5 Cir., 33 F.2d 13. The Texas & N. O. R. Co. case and McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co. case involved situations where prior decrees......
  • BROTHERHOOD OF RY. AND SS CLERKS, ETC. v. Texas & NOR Co., No. 314.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • April 19, 1928
    ...to have the right to continue operations in interstate commerce protected from activities of persons who would seek to prevent that 25 F.2d 876 operation, by inducing persons not to work for them. Both rights are imponderable and intangible, but neither less real and substantial than the Fi......
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Riverside Mfg. Co., No. 9643.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • May 31, 1941
    ...shall choose another representative or representatives." Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks v. Texas & N. O. R. Co. et al., D.C., 25 F.2d 876,...

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