Coley v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R.

• Decision Date: 04 March 1942
• Docket Number: 101.
• Citation: Coley v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R., 221 N.C. 66, 19 S.E.2d 124 (N.C. 1942)
• Parties: COLEY et al. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. R. et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

19 S.E.2d 124

221 N.C. 66

COLEY et al. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. R. et al.

No. 101.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 4, 1942

Civil action by a number of employees of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company for mandatory injunction to compel revision of seniority roster or to restrain defendants from putting into effect roster as published.

The controlling allegations and agreed facts follow:

1.On 25 June, 1938, the Brotherhood Railway Carmen of America operating through the Railway Employees Department American Federation of Labor, was certified by the National Mediation Board as the duly authorized representative of the craft or class of carmen, their helpers and apprentices employees of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company for the purpose of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. A. § 151 et seq.

2.On 25 July, 1939, an agreement was reached in collective bargaining between the Brotherhood and the Railroad Company, fixing seniority of employees in the coach shop and freight car department of the Company.This is generally referred to as the "Lauderman Agreement".

3.Thereafter, on 24 August, a supplemental agreement was entered into "for the purpose of formulating the method to be used in implementing the agreement of 25 July 1939".Under this supplement, representatives of Management and of the Brotherhood were to meet and prepare the seniority roster in conformity with the agreement between the parties as applicable to the shops at Rocky Mount, N. C.This was done between 24 August and 15 September.

4.On 25 September, 1939, a meeting was held in Rocky Mount for the purpose of reviewing the work that had been done, and "the roster as prepared was approved by the authorized representatives of the Brotherhood" and was also approved by the Railroad Company.

5.On 1 October, 1939, the seniority roster as thus approved by the representatives of Management and the Brotherhood was posted on the Bulletin Board as the official roster for the Emerson Shops at Rocky Mount, N. C.

6.It is alleged that the plaintiffs' rights have been violated in the preparation of the roster by adding seniority accumulated in the car department to seniority acquired in the coach shop department, and thus preferring employees with such accumulated seniority over the plaintiffs; that "all such unlawful and wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant Lodge was committed and done, so far as these plaintiffs know, without the connivance, knowledge, or permission of the defendant, Railroad Company", and that the "Railroad Company, not knowing the evil intent and unlawful conduct of the defendant Lodge, accepted said wrongful revised seniority list in good faith and posted it upon the Bulletin Board in good faith not knowing that the list had been improperly and unlawfully revised in violation of the contract of employment by the defendantRailroad Company and the men in its Coach Shop and Freight Car Department".

7.Written protest was filed to the roster by the plaintiffs herein on 5 October.Between the date of the receipt of said protest and the institution of this action on 27 October, 1939, "no action was taken with respect thereto".

Preliminary injunction was granted and continued to the hearing.On the final hearing, the restraining order was dissolved and the action dismissed as in case of nonsuit.

Plaintiffs appeal, assigning error.

B. H. Thomas, of Rocky Mount and W. A. Lucas, of Wilson, for plaintiffs, appellants.

F. S. Spruill, of Rocky Mount (Thomas W. Davis, of Wilmington, of counsel), for defendant Railroad, appellee.

Itimous T. Valentine, of Nashville, and Frank L. Mulholland, Clarence M. Mulholland, and Willard H. McEwen, all of Toledo, Ohio (Mulholland, Robie & McEwen, of Toledo, Ohio, of counsel), for defendant Lodge, appellee.

STACY Chief Justice.

Conceding the complaint may be interpreted as alleging arbitrariness or fraud on the part of defendant Lodge and mistake on...