Clemens v. Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, No. 16514.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | HASTIE, , and FREEDMAN and VAN DUSEN, Circuit |
| Citation | 399 F.2d 825 |
| Parties | Ira CLEMENS (individually and on behalf of others adversely affected) v. CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, Lehigh and New England Railway Company and Lehigh and New England Railroad Company, Appellants. |
| Docket Number | No. 16514. |
| Decision Date | 09 August 1968 |
399 F.2d 825 (1968)
Ira CLEMENS (individually and on behalf of others adversely affected)
v.
CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, Lehigh and New England Railway Company and Lehigh and New England Railroad Company, Appellants.
No. 16514.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued February 6, 1968.
Decided August 9, 1968.
As Amended September 20, 1968.
Rehearing Denied October 4, 1968.
Certiorari Denied January 13, 1969.
Miles W. Kirkpatrick, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa. (Warren M. Laddon, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
Lawrence J. Richette, Frater, Green & Levy, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before HASTIE, Chief Judge, and FREEDMAN and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges.
Certiorari Denied January 13, 1969. See 89 S.Ct. 633.
OPINION OF THE COURT
HASTIE, Chief Judge.
As originally filed, the complaint in this suit by involuntarily retired employees of a railroad sought "an injunction, mandatory in nature" to compel the railroad "to abide by the Order and Certificate of the Interstate Commerce Commission providing for severance pay in accord with the New Orleans case." Subsequently, an amendment to the complaint supplemented the prayer for relief by asking "in the alternative" that the court issue a mandatory injunction requiring the parties to arbitrate their dispute.
The complaint alleges that since January, 1962, the plaintiff and other employees, constituting a class, have been illegally subjected by the railroad to forced retirement at age 65 without severance pay,1 pursuant to a wrongful and invalid collective bargaining contract between the railroad and the railroad brotherhoods, purporting to act as representatives of the employees.2 The contract is said to be invalid because it undertakes to deprive the plaintiffs of benefits guaranteed to them by a decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission, Finance Docket No. 21155, Sept. 26, 1961, authorizing the railroad to abandon certain trackage subject to the conditions of the so-called New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal case which incorporated certain provisions of the Washington Job Protection Agreement providing severance pay for employees who should lose their jobs as a result of a permitted abandonment of railroad facilities. As stated above, the complaint asks that the railroad be ordered to make severance payments or to arbitrate the dispute.
A defense motion for summary judgment on the basis of res judicata was denied and the court ultimately ordered the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration. In reaching this result, the court decided that the contract between the railroad and the brotherhoods was invalid insofar as it abrogated any rights to severance pay derived from the employee protective provisions of the 1961 decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
On appeal one of the railroad's contentions is that this court and the district court have held in an earlier lawsuit between the same employees and the railroad that the involuntary retirement provisions of the contract between the railroad and the brotherhoods are binding on the plaintiffs and, therefore, that this issue cannot properly be reexamined or the earlier ruling reversed in this action.
We have examined the earlier case, Roberts v. Lehigh & New England Ry., 3d Cir. 1963, 323 F.2d 219, affirming, E.D.Pa.1962, 211 F.Supp. 379. There is no significant difference between the parties in that suit and the parties here. The plaintiffs complained of exactly the same wrong, their involuntary retirement without severance pay pursuant to the contract between the railroad and the brotherhoods. However,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michota v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Civ. A. No. 77-2543
...liability has been changed from "unfair representation" to a "pension" suit makes no difference. See Clemens v. Central R.R. Co. of N.J., 399 F.2d 825 (3d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1023, 89 S.Ct. 633, 21 L.Ed.2d 567 In accordance with the above, summary judgment will be entered in ......
-
International Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Dist. Lodge No. 19 v. Soo Line R. Co., 86-5355
...v. Lehigh & New England Railway Co., 211 F.Supp. 379 (E.D.Pa.1962), aff'd, 323 F.2d 219 (3d Cir.1963); Clemens v. Central Railroad Co., 399 F.2d 825 (3d Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1023, 89 S.Ct. 633, 21 L.Ed.2d 567 (1969); Nemitz v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co., 436 F.2d 841 (6th ......
-
Gambrell v. Hess, Civ. A. No. 90-3959.
...the same cause of action. United States v. Athlone Industries, Inc., 746 F.2d at 984; Clemens v. Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, 399 F.2d 825, 828 (3d Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1023, 89 S.Ct. 633, 21 L.Ed.2d 567 (1969). Gambrell's claims against Judge Ackerman are thus barre......
-
Rodriguez v. Swank, 69 C 2615.
...Hospital Ass'n, 375 F.2d 648 (4th Cir.1967); Clemens v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 264 F. Supp. 551 (E.D.Pa.1967), rev'd. on other grounds, 399 F.2d 825 (3 Cir.), cert. den. 393 U.S. 1023, 89 S.Ct. 633, 21 L. Ed.2d Second, there are questions of law common to the classes, such as interpretati......
-
Gambrell v. Hess, Civ. A. No. 90-3959.
...the same cause of action. United States v. Athlone Industries, Inc., 746 F.2d at 984; Clemens v. Central Railroad Company of New Jersey, 399 F.2d 825, 828 (3d Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1023, 89 S.Ct. 633, 21 L.Ed.2d 567 (1969). Gambrell's claims against Judge Ackerman are thus barre......
-
Michota v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Civ. A. No. 77-2543
...liability has been changed from "unfair representation" to a "pension" suit makes no difference. See Clemens v. Central R.R. Co. of N.J., 399 F.2d 825 (3d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1023, 89 S.Ct. 633, 21 L.Ed.2d 567 In accordance with the above, summary judgment will be entered in ......
-
International Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Dist. Lodge No. 19 v. Soo Line R. Co., No. 86-5355
...v. Lehigh & New England Railway Co., 211 F.Supp. 379 (E.D.Pa.1962), aff'd, 323 F.2d 219 (3d Cir.1963); Clemens v. Central Railroad Co., 399 F.2d 825 (3d Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1023, 89 S.Ct. 633, 21 L.Ed.2d 567 (1969); Nemitz v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co., 436 F.2d 841 (6th ......
-
Rodriguez v. Swank, No. 69 C 2615.
...Hospital Ass'n, 375 F.2d 648 (4th Cir.1967); Clemens v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 264 F. Supp. 551 (E.D.Pa.1967), rev'd. on other grounds, 399 F.2d 825 (3 Cir.), cert. den. 393 U.S. 1023, 89 S.Ct. 633, 21 L. Ed.2d Second, there are questions of law common to the classes, such as interpretati......