Dooley v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. of Pa.

• Decision Date: 25 July 1941
• Docket Number: 129/386.
• Parties: DOOLEY et al. v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. OF PENNSYLVANIA et al.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

21 A.2d 334

130 N.J.Eq. 75

DOOLEY et al.

v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. OF PENNSYLVANIA et al.

129/386.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

July 25, 1941.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The contract between employer and union not only enters into the individual contract, but it circumscribes the rights of the employer and the members of the union with respect to making individual contracts of employment. It creates legal rights and duties which are independent of particular hirings.

2. A collective bargaining agreement is the joint and several contract of the members of the union, made by the officers of the union as their agents. It is enforceable by or against individual members of the union in matters which affect them peculiarly; and it is enforceable by or against the union in matters which affect all the members alike, or large classes of members, for instance, those who are employes of the other party to the contract. Christiansen v. Local 680, Milk Drivers, etc, 126 N.J.Eq. 508, 10 A.2d 168.

3. Seniority represents in the highest degree the right to work. By seniority the oldest man in point of service (ability and fitness for the job being sufficient) is given the choice of jobs, is the first promoted within the range of jobs subject to seniority, and is the last laid off. It proceeds so on down the line to the youngest in point of service.

4. Seniority rights result from the desire of railway labor organizations to protect men of extended service in the right to their jobs and to select their jobs, in preference to men who have had shorter periods of service.

Suit by Patrick J. Dooley and others against the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company of Pennsylvania and others to compel the restoration of seniority rights, to recover earnings lost because of the deprivation of seniority rights, and to restrain the violation of a collective bargaining agreement.

Decree for complainants.

Michael M. Kane, of Jersey City (Abraham J. Slurzberg, of Jersey City, of counsel), for complainants.

Collins & Corbin, of Jersey City (Edward A. Markley and Charles W. Broadhurst, both of Jersey City, of counsel), for defendant Lehigh Valley R. Co.

Amerigo D'Agostino, of Trenton, for defendant Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, etc.

EGAN, Vice Chancellor.

The complainant, a railroad clerk, seeks to compel his employer, the defendant Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, and his union, the defendant Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, to restore to him his seniority status, the retention of his position on the clerk's roster of the New York Division of the Railroad as it was prior to September 22, 1937, recovery of earnings allegedly lost because of the deprivation of seniority rights, and an injunction restraining the defendants from violating a certain collective bargaining agreement. The suit is based upon written agreements made in 1923 and 1935 between the Lehigh Valley Railroad and clerks and other office and station employees of the Railroad represented by the Association of Lehigh Valley Railroad Clerks. (Exhibits C-l and C-3). The agreements contain rules and regulations governing the hours of service and working conditions of the clerical employees of the Railroad then or thereafter to be employed by it, and provide for the recognition by the Railroad of seniority rights of its employees as beginning "at the time the employe's pay starts." There is a clause therein that when any employees voluntarily left the Railroad's service and subsequently re-entered it, they then would be considered new employees. The provisions governing seniority are (1923 agreement, Exhibit C-1):

Rule 3: "Seniority begins at the time the employe's pay starts * * *."

Rule 4: "Employes covered by these rules shall be in line for promotion. Promotion shall be based on seniority, fitness and ability; fitness and ability being equal, seniority shall prevail. * * *"

Rule 6: "Seniority rights of employes to vacancies or new positions will be governed by these rules."

Rule 16: "When reducing forces, fitness and ability being equal, seniority rights shall govern. When forces are increased, employes will be returned to service in the order of their seniority rights, fitness and ability being equal. * * *"

Rule 17: "A seniority roster of all employes in each seniority district compiled in accordance with the following standard form, will be posted in agreed upon places accessible to all employes affected. * * *"

Rule 21: "Employes whose positions are abolished may exercise their seniority rights, subject to Rule 4, over junior employes. * * *"

Rule 22: "Employes voluntarily leaving the service, will, if they re-enter, be considered new employes.

Rule 34: "Employes who have been in the service for one year or more may be given a leave of absence for ninety days and at the end of that time, or before, if desired, may resume their employment without losing their seniority. * * *"

In the latter part of January, 1932, the Railroad contracted with the Universal Cartage Company (Universal Carloading & Distributing Company, Inc.), whereby the Cartage Company was granted operating facilities on the Railroad's Pier 8, North River Station, New York City. The Cartage Company, under the contract, took over work which had previously been done by the Railroad. The Railroad then reduced its clerical force at that station. John Trainor, Hans Peterson and James Coffey, who had been employed by the Railroad at the Pier then entered the employ of the Cartage Company. The contract between the Railroad Company and the Cartage Company expired in 1936; thereupon these three men sought re-employment with the Railroad through the Association of Lehigh Valley Railroad Clerks. The Association asked for their reinstatement with a restoration of their seniority rights. It met with no favorable results; the requests were denied. The three men then consulted John J. Buckley, the Chairman of the defendant Brotherhood's System Board of the Lehigh Valley Railroad. On February 25, 1936, he communicated with the general manager of the defendant Railroad requesting a hearing for the men. (Exhibit DA-1). He received a reply on February 28, 1936, in which the general manager stated that he could not entertain the request because the alleged grievances of these men were "being handled" by the Association of Lehigh Valley Railroad Clerks. He declared that the Brotherhood did not represent the three men. (Exhibit DA-2).

On April 19, 1937, the Brotherhood carried the matter to the National Mediation Board and requested it to have an election called to determine who was the bargaining agent for the clerical employees of the defendant Railroad. (National Mediation Board Case No. R-338, Exhibit C-21). The Board heard the application in New York City on June 14, 1937. It issued a "Findings to Determine Eligible List"; and its mediator, P. D. Harvey, "was directed to proceed to a determination by secret ballot or by check of authorizations, as to who may properly represent the groups of employees included within the Clerical, Office, Station and Storehouse employees of the Lehigh Valley Railroad as a single craft or class." Preparations for an election were being made by the mediator when, "under date of June 22, 1937, he was advised by the parties that they had disposed of the question, and under date of June 29, 1937, a letter was addressed to the Board by Mr. Geo. M. Harrison, Grand President, Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes, advising that all differences in this dispute had been composed by the parties to the dispute, and withdrawing the request of his organization from further investigation by the Board." On the basis of the letter referred to, the National Mediation Board then dismissed the proceedings.

On June 23, 1937, the Railroad recognized and designated the defendant Brotherhood as the collective bargaining agent and representative of all clerical employees of the Railroad in the place and stead of the Association of Lehigh Valley Railroad Clerks, despite the fact that no election had been held under the auspices of the National Mediation Board. Three days later Buckley wrote the general manager of the defendant Railroad to reopen the matter for the purpose of determining the three men's seniority status. (Exhibit DA-3). Subsequently, on September 21, 1937, an agreement was reached whereby the three men obtained their former positions and the restoration of their seniority status as of the date of their original employment on the Railroad. (Exhibit DA-5). The act of the Railroad in establishing the seniority status of the three men did not meet with the approval of the officers and members of the Lehigh Valley Black Diamond Lodge No. 847 of the Brotherhood. On October 21, 1937, that body, in conformity with the constitution of the Brotherhood, applied to the Grand President for leave to circulate a petition of protest against Buckley's action in behalf of the Brotherhood to restore the original seniority of the three men. A petition to such effect was circulated and signed by 144 members of the Brotherhood. The Grand Lodge failed to act on the petition; then the local lodges on the division appealed to the System Board of Adjustment. That Board upheld Buckley. (Exhibit D-4). An appeal was then taken to the Grand President; he sustained the System Board. (Exhibit D-5). The complainant also personally appealed to the Grand President, who, after an investigation, upheld Buckley.

The action of the Railroad and the Brotherhood in restoring the men to their original seniority status is here challenged by the complainant who contends that it violates the terms of the agreement of 1923 (Exhibit C-l), superseded by the agreement of April 1, 1935, (Exhibit C-3), which retains the aforementioned rules governing seniority. He charges that Buckley's action was "illegal,...