Bryant v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
| Decision Date | 31 October 1947 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 1977. |
| Citation | 74 F. Supp. 510 |
| Parties | BRYANT et al. v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN RAPIDES LODGE NO. 856 et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
J. Lyle De Bellevue, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Shreveport, La., for plaintiffs.
Fred Fudickar, Jr. and Hudson, Potts, Bernstein & Davenport, all of Monroe, La., for defendants.
This is an action brought by the United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, on behalf of Charles W. Bryant and John H. Beverly, veteran plaintiffs, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8(e) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 308(e), to protect their rights thereunder relative to obtaining for them the same seniority with the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen Rapides Lodge No. 856 and the Missouri-Pacific Railroad Company that they had at the time that they went into the Armed Forces of the United States.
It was necessary to dispose of certain exceptions that were filed by the defendant, the Missouri-Pacific Railroad Company. The other defendant, The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen Rapides Lodge No. 856, is not contesting this suit and a default has been entered against this defendant. The exceptions that have been filed by the railroad are as follows: an exception to the jurisdiction of this court, ratione materiae; an exception of no cause or right of action and an exception of prematurity. These exceptions were referred to the merits by agreement.
The facts, with one exception, are not in dispute and have been stipulated. The basic issues present questions of law only and have to do with a determination of whether or not two ex-soldiers have been restored to the service of defendant without actionable prejudice by reason of their absence in military service — within the meaning and requirements of the federal statute.
On October 10, 1924, Clifford Crego was employed by the Missouri-Pacific Railroad Company as switchman in the Alexandria Joint Terminal at Alexandria, Louisiana, in which capacity he remained in the employ of the said Railroad until December 1938, at which time he was discharged as an unsatisfactory employee by the railroad. At the time of his discharge in 1938, there was in existence an agreement between the Missouri-Pacific Railroad Company and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen which provided for certain procedure to appeal such action by the Railroad in discharging an employee in order to be reinstated. The particular provisions of the agreement, which was in full force and effect at that time, is Article 19, Section a, entitled "Forfeiture of Rights", which provides as follows: "If a yardman is discharged from the service, he shall forfeit all rights previously held, unless he is reinstated within ninety days or his case is pending."
It is contended by the plaintiffs that after his discharge Clifford Crego failed to appeal his case; therefore, his case was not a pending one in order to comply with the hereinabove cited provision. He was not reinstated within 90 days after his discharge; however, it is contended by the defendant railroad that throughout the entire system of the Missouri-Pacific Railroad employees are reinstated as common practice, even though applied for more than 90 days after dismissal; and, further, that frequently there is no opposition by the Union or other affected employees.
During the period from 1938 to 1942 Crego dealt cards in a professional game.
On October 13, 1942, the said Crego was reemployed by the Missouri-Pacific Railroad as a new employee with seniority dating from October 13, 1942, the date shown by the seniority roster of the Union dated January 1, 1943. On the roster Crego is shown to occupy position Number 34 and plaintiffs Beverly and Bryant positions 21 and 22, respectively, with seniority dates shown as January 5, 1941, and January 21, 1941, respectively.
The reinstatement of Crego took place after plaintiff Beverly was inducted into the Armed Forces and just prior to the time Bryant was inducted. Then, on June 10, 1943, Crego was reinstated by the Missouri-Pacific Railroad to all seniority rights dating from the date of his original employment which was October 10, 1924, thereby placing him in position Number 12 on the seniority roster of the Union and pushing plaintiff John H. Beverly from position Number 21 to position Number 22 and Charles W. Bryant from position Number 22 to position Number 23 as a result of this reinstatement, which was not their position at the time they entered the Armed Forces.
It is contended by the plaintiffs that by such shifting of seniority their rights have been prejudiced because of the fact that they have been forced to be placed on the Switchman's Extra Board, which was not their position at the time they entered the Armed Forces of the United States.
The case was tried without a jury on July 24, 1947. The court having carefully considered the evidence and the law applicable to the case presented, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
a. The proceedings herein are under Section 8(e) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. 54 Stat. 890, 50 U.S. C.A.Appendix, § 308(e), and the jurisdiction of this Court is based on that section. The jurisdiction of this Court is further based on the theory found in the case of the Texas & Pacific Railroad Company et al. v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen et al., D.C., 63 F.Supp. 640, at page 641.
b. The plaintiffs reside in the Western District of Louisiana.
c. That Guy A. Thompson, Trustee of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, Debtor in a Bankruptcy Reorganization Proceeding pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri, is substituted as a party defendant in the place of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, and that this suit is dismissed as to that Corporation. The Trustee has entered a general appearance herein and in all respects stands in lieu of the said Corporation.
d. That defendant has maintained a place of business within the Western District of Louisiana at all times during the period involved in this suit, and is at present maintaining a place of business within the Western District of Louisiana.
e. That there is at present no labor dispute over Crego.
f. The position held by each plaintiff with the defendant railroad was not a temporary one, both of them being switchmen regularly employed; their seniority dates, established before entering the service, were January 1, and January 5, 1941.
g. The plaintiffs were honorably discharged and made application for their jobs within the required time as provided by law.
h. The plaintiffs, under Section 8(e) of the Selective Training and Service Act 1940, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 308(e), have, in their complaint, stated and, in the record established by the trial, proved a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anglin v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
...relating to notice to the employer or to the union, or relating to the manner of taking a leave of absence. Bryant v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, D.C., 74 F. Supp. 510; Trailmobile Co. v. Whirls, 6 Cir., 1946, 154 F.2d 866. In fact defendant was actually accepted for military service ......
- Kan v. Tsang, 25864.