D'Elia v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RR
Decision Date | 23 March 1964 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 10074. |
Citation | 230 F. Supp. 912 |
Parties | James J. D'ELIA, Jr., Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD R. R. and Richard Joyce Smith, William J. Kirk, Harry W. Dorigan, as Trustees of The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
F. Timothy McNamara, Hartford, Conn., for plaintiff.
Thomas J. O'Sullivan, New Haven, Conn., for defendant.
This is an action by an employee of defendant Railroad to set aside a determination of the National Railroad Adjustment Board (hereinafter NRAB) that plaintiff is not entitled to compensation from defendant for a period during which plaintiff was suspended from employment without pay. (Plaintiff has since been restored to employment.)
Jurisdiction of this Court is alleged to be pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337 and 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.
Pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., defendant has moved for a summary judgment in its favor.
The essential facts are not in dispute,
January 20, 1960 a hearing on various charges against plaintiff was conducted by J. J. Pfister, an employee of defendant Railroad.
February 2, 1960 defendant's Mechanical Superintendent, R. H. Davis, advised plaintiff by letter that he was found guilty of the various charges and would be disciplined by dismissal from defendant's employ.
March 22, 1960, pursuant to negotiations between plaintiff's union and defendant, plaintiff was restored to defendant's employ with seniority and vacation rights unimpaired, but without pay for the period during which he was suspended.
June 17, 1963 the NRAB, to which the dispute over pay for the period of plaintiff's suspension was submitted when plaintiff's union and defendant were unable to agree, denied plaintiff's claim for compensation.
October 4, 1963 plaintiff filed the complaint in the instant action seeking relief as set forth above.
October 31, 1963 defendant filed the pending motion for summary judgment in its favor.
In the view the Court takes of this matter the resolution of two basic issues determines the disposition of this motion:
The Railway Labor Act1 establishes a National Railroad Adjustment Board with jurisdiction to determine disputes between railway carriers and "carmen" employees, inter alia.2 Plaintiff was, at the time the dispute herein arose, a carman.
The Act provides that:
"the awards of the Board shall be final and binding upon both parties to the dispute, except insofar as they shall contain a money award." Emphasis added3
In clarification, the Act further provides that if a money award in favor of a petitioner is made, the NRAB shall make an order directing the carrier to pay the award4; and if the carrier fails to comply with such order by paying the award, the petitioner may institute a civil action in the District Court to enforce that award.5
Thus, it is clear that the Act's provision for finality of the NRAB's awards, and implicit concomitant preclusion of judicial review thereof, applies to all determinations of the NRAB which do not include a money award in favor of the petitioner. The award of the NRAB in the instant case falls in this latter category.
In Union Pacific R. Co. v. Price6 the Supreme Court recently set forth a definitive interpretation of 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (m). The Court said:
7
In Price the employee-petitioner had contended that:
"Because an enforcement proceeding against a non-complying carrier under § 3 First (p) 45 U. S.C. § 153 First (p) affords the defeated carrier some opportunity to relitigate the issues decided by the Adjustment Board, unfairness results if § 3 First (m) 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (m) is construed to deny the employee the right to maintain this common-law action."8
Indeed, plaintiff in the instant case in effect makes the same contention in arguing this Court should adopt the reasoning of the dissent in Price.
But as the Supreme Court responded in Price, so must this Court respond here:
"The disparity in judicial review of Adjustment Board orders, if it can be said to be unfair at all, was explicitly created by Congress, and it is for Congress to say whether it ought to be removed."9
Even conceding, arguendo, the applicability of Union Pacific R. Co. v. Price, supra, in the ordinary case, plaintiff argues that when, as here, the allegations of an employee's complaint raise the issue of a denial of procedural due process of law, this Court must decide that issue.
To the extent this argument relates to plaintiff's allegation of a denial of a "fair hearing" at the preliminary Railroad hearing conducted by defendant's employee, Pfister, it has no foundation. (To the extent it relates to an alleged denial of constitutional rights by the NRAB itself, plaintiff is on sounder ground; this aspect of the case is discussed infra at part II of this decision.)
The authorities upon which plaintiff relies for the proposition that an alleged denial of due process at the preliminary Railroad hearing bestows upon this Court the power to inquire into the merits of that allegation — once it has been decided adversely to plaintiff by the NRAB, as it has in this case — do not support that contention. These cases assert only that if a petitioner alleges a denial of due process of law by the NRAB, the federal courts have jurisdiction to ascertain the validity of that allegation. In Ferro v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.,10 for example, the only Second Circuit case in point cited by plaintiff, petitioners had claimed that they should not be required to have their dispute resolved by the NRAB because the Board was likely to be prejudiced against them. The Court rejected this claim, saying:
"The courts are invested with sufficient appellate jurisdiction over the Board to protect appellants from a denial of due process."11
Other cases make clear that it is only a denial of due process by some conduct of the NRAB in the making of an award which invests the District Courts with jurisdiction to review that award, when they would not otherwise have the power to do so.12
It should be emphasized here that plaintiff's claim of prejudice on the part of Pfister — and a consequent unfairness in the preliminary Railroad hearing conducted by him — was made when the compensation dispute was submitted to the NRAB; and it was rejected by that Board. Accordingly, since this Court is precluded from reviewing the NRAB's determination that plaintiff is not entitled to compensation for the period he was suspended from employment without pay, it would appear equally precluded from reviewing the NRAB's concomitant determination that plaintiff was not denied a fair hearing at the company level of inquiry into the charges, as conducted by Pfister. Only an alleged denial of due process by conduct of the NRAB itself would permit this Court to review that Board's award under the circumstances of this case.13
II
The only claimed denial of plaintiff's constitutional rights that can be even remotely connected to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Edwards v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad Company
...under the Railway Labor Act to review the award when it would not otherwise have the power to do so. D'Elia v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co., 230 F.Supp. 912 (D. Conn.1964), aff'd 338 F.2d 701 (2d Cir. 1964); Hornsby v. Dobard, 291 F.2d 483 (5th Cir. 1961); Ellerd v. Southern Pacifi......
-
McElroy v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis
...in Section 2 Eleventh (c) of the Railway Labor Act and qualified by the National Mediation Board. 12 D'Elia v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co., 230 F.Supp. 912 (D. Conn.1964), affirmed, 338 F.2d 701 (2d Cir. 1964), certiorari denied, 380 U.S. 978, 85 S.Ct. 1340, 14 L.Ed.2d 272; D'Amic......
-
Del Casal v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.
...Company, 177 F.2d 385 (8th Cir. 1949); Ciaccio v. Eastern Airlines, 354 F.Supp. 1272 (E.D.N.Y.1973); D'Elia v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, 230 F.Supp. 912 (D.Conn.1946); D'Amico v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 191 F.Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y.1961). See also, Crusco v. Fisher......
-
BROTH. OF MAINTENANCE, ETC. v. ST. JOHNSBURY, ETC.
...1307, 22 L.Ed.2d 560 (1969); Southern Pacific Co. v. Wilson, 378 F.2d 533, 536-537 (5th Cir. 1967); D'Elia v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, 230 F.Supp. 912, 915 (D.Ct.1964), aff'd, 338 F.2d 701 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 978, 85 S.Ct. 1340, 14 L.Ed.2d 272 (1965). Sh......