Donovan v. Travers

• Decision Date: 18 January 1934
• Citation: 188 N.E. 705,285 Mass. 167
• Parties: DONOVAN et al. v. TRAVERS et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

285 Mass. 167

188 N.E. 705

DONOVAN et al.

v.TRAVERS et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Jan. 18, 1934.

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Donnelly, Judge.

Bill in equity by Timothy Donovan and others against Barnard F. Travers and others. From an interlocutory decree confirming the master's report and a final decree dismissing the bill, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.M. J. Robinson and F. W. Mansfield, both of Boston, for appellants.

T. C. O'Brien and J. E. Keefe, Jr., both of Boston, for appellees.

WAIT, Justice.

The plaintiffs are three men formerly employed as switch tenders in the Lynn yard of the Boston and Maine Railroad. The defendants are the railroad corporation, and the members of the general grievance committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, alleged to be a voluntary, unincorporated association existing by virtue of an agreement between the brotherhood and the railroad corporation. The chairman, Travers, the vice-chairman, Wood, and the secretary, Burns, are named as defendants who fairly represent the remaining defendants, numerous unnamed members of the committee. The proceeding is a bill in equity seeking specific performance of an agreement between the union and the railroad. The union is not made a party. In its essence the bill seeks an interpretation of the agreement differing from that decided by the committee and acquiesced in by the railroad corporation to be the proper interpretation; and injunctive relief to secure restoration to the plaintiffs of rights claimed to belong to them but to have been taken away by action in accord with the wrongful determination of the committee. Under a prayer for general relief damages are claimed. No demurrer was filed, and no question of general equity jurisdiction was raised by the pleadings. The case was referred to a master who, by consent, made rulings of law as well as findings of fact. Any defence that the plaintiffs had failed to exercise their rights of appeal within the brotherhood was waived.

Material facts are as follows: The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is a voluntary, unincorporated association of railroad workmen, having subordinate lodges in different parts of the United States, with a grand lodge located at Cleveland, Ohio. It was organized in 1883. The plaintiffs are members of Lodge 749, located at Lynn, Massachusetts. For many years there has been an agreement, changed from time to time, between the brotherhood and the Boston and Maine Railroad made for the mutual benefit of the railroad and of all members of the brotherhood employed upon it. A general grievance committee, created under the constitution and rules of the brotherhood, is charged with the duty of considering and adjusting complaints and grievances which arise between the members and the railroad. By the agreement, such grievances are to be referred to and adjusted by this committee. Although nowhere distinctly so stated, it is manifest from the record and the briefs that the terms of the agreement according rights to employee members by the provisions of the agreements in force from time to time were regarded by both railroad and employees as forming part of their several and individual contracts of employment. The classes of employees entitled to rights under the varied agreements differed from time to time. A provision of the agreement in force when the events took place out of which the present controversy arises was as follows: ‘Article 2. The rights of yardmen will be confined to their respective yards, except where yards are abolished; men so affected will have seniority rights in other yards on that division. * * * Addendum to Article 2(A) Effective May 30, 1924, yardmen will have interchangeable rights in the yards on their respective divisions. Rights of yardmen will be preserved as in effect prior to May 30, 1924, in their respective yards, but yardmen will begin to acquire seniority in other yards on their divisions as of May 30, 1924. * * * Doubtful or disputed questions arising will be submitted by Superintendent to General Superintendent, and by Local Chairman to their General Chairman, and be adjusted mutually by General Superintendent and General Chairman.’ The agreement, among other things, deals with rights of preferential employment, dependent, in part, upon ‘seniority’-a term not defined in agreement but having to do with length of service. Article 2 was not made applicable to switch tenders by any agreement executed before October 25, 1922. No copy of any agreement containing all its terms was in evidence or it before us.

The Lynn yard as a place of employment for stationary switch tenders such as the plaintiffs, who had been employed there for terms of service beginning in 1894, 1900, and 1909, was abolished in 1930 by the installation of interlocking switches operated from a tower. The plaintiffs sought employment in another yard on the same division at Peabody. At first, convinced that the plaintiffs' contention of their rights of seniority were correct by statements of General Chairman Travers reinforced by those of one Kelley, the business representative of Lodge 749, the railroad made the desired appointments; and, in doing so, was forced to displace three other switchmen already at work in the Peabody yard whose seniority there began to run before October 25, 1922. One of these displaced switchmen claimed and was given employment as switchman in the Lawrence yard of the same division, ousting other aspirants from the Lawrence yard on the basis of seniority computed as that of the plaintiffs had been. Although Lodge 749 had stood behind the plaintiffs, the lodge at Lawrence took up the cause of the Lawrence switchmen, and complained to the general grievance committee.That committee considered the grievance, and decided that the plaintiffs were wrong in their claim of seniority. Consequently the railroad, treating the controversy as one within the brotherhood to be controlled by the brotherhood's decision, reinstated the men who had been superseded in Lawrence and Peabody, and removed the plaintiffs. The action so taken by the railroad is the thing here complained of-the action this court is asked to undo. Before the decision of the general grievance committee, Travers had reported the circumstances and his action to the president of the brotherhood and asked his advice. He received a letter from the president which disapproved his course. The letter took the position that, in line with the brotherhood's policy, since the provision of article 2 conferring the right to switch tenders ‘to exercise seniority...