Casey v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen
| Decision Date | 24 April 1936 |
| Docket Number | 30,745 |
| Citation | 266 N.W. 737,197 Minn. 189 |
| Parties | F. J. CASEY v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Crow Wing county by a member of defendant brotherhood to recover in damages the amount he claims to have lost by reason of his reranking on the seniority list as a railway fireman for the Northern Pacific Railway Company. The case was tried before Graham M Torrance, Judge, and a jury. Plaintiff had a verdict of $4,500.Defendant appealed from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment or a new trial. Reversed and judgment ordered for defendant.
Master and servant -- contract between railroad and brotherhood -- ranking of fireman.
A rule which provides that a fireman who fails in his third examination for promotion to the position of engineer "shall be assigned and rank as the oldest extra fireman on the seniority district at the time he fails" reranks such fireman on the list as if he had originally come into service as of a date prior to the senior on the extra board and junior to the lowest man on regular runs.
A. G McKnight, M. J. McKeon, Thomas Stevenson, and Harold C. Heiss, for appellant.
Ryan, Ryan & Ryan, for respondent.
This case comes here upon an appeal by the defendant from an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The principal question presented is the construction of one of the rules which forms part of the contract between the defendant, in behalf of its members, and the Northern Pacific Railway Company. The plaintiff entered the service of that company in 1910 as a fireman, and his seniority rights originally dated from that year. He was a member in good standing of the defendant brotherhood.
In each seniority district of the railway firemen are ranked according to their seniority, which, of course, means their length of service, and this roster of firemen we shall, for convenience, call a "list." In railroad parlance it is apparently referred to as a "board," and those firemen who have regular runs are referred to as being on the "train board" or "regular board," and those who are callable only for extra work, because the regular runs are all taken by their seniors, are referred to as being on the "extra board." It will therefore be seen that a fireman near the bottom of the regular board or at the top of the extra board passes from one to the other according to the vicissitudes and volume of the railroad's business, depending upon the number of runs that rank as regular. He passes back and forth from regular to extra according to his rank on the list, which depends upon the date of entry into service except as otherwise provided in the rule hereinafter referred to.
It is conceded by plaintiff that in selecting its engineers the railway company calls for examination firemen from the top of the firemen's list, and the rule governing their rank if they fail to pass provides as follows:
(Italics supplied.)
"Note -- Firemen who have failed or refused examination three times, prior to the adoption of this rule will forfeit their seniority rights to other than freight service and hostling positions."
Prior to 1920 the rule had been as indicated in the note, and the failed examinees has no further chance for examination. The 1920 rule mitigates the penalty for failure.
The plaintiff failed to pass three examinations for promotion to engineer, and it is his contention that he was not assigned rank on the firemen's list in accordance with the terms of the rule quoted. He was placed thereon to rank as of February 15, 1916, the seniority date just above that of the oldest extra fireman and just below that of the next one above, who was of course the lowest ranking man on the regular list. It is his contention that ranking him from 1916 was a violation of his rights and that as amongst the firemen on the extra board he should have been called to service prior to all of...
To continue reading
Request your trial