GENERAL COMMITTEE, ETC. v. Missouri, K. & TR Co.

• Decision Date: 21 January 1943
• Docket Number: No. 10115.,10115.
• Parties: GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OF BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS FOR MISSOURI-K.-T. R. R. v. MISSOURI-K.-T. R. CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

132 F.2d 91 (1942)

GENERAL COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT OF BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS FOR MISSOURI-K.-T. R. R. v. MISSOURI-K.-T. R. CO. et al.

No. 10115.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

December 9, 1942.

Rehearing Denied January 21, 1943.

J. W. Madden, Jr., of Dallas, Tex., and Clarence E. Weisell, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.

Allen Wight, Lucian Touchstone, and T. D. Gresham, all of Dallas, Tex., and Harold C. Heiss, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellees.

Before SIBLEY and HUTCHESON, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge.

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.

The appellant, General Committee of Adjustment of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers for the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad, who will be referred to as the Engineers' Committee, is a body of men each of whom is chosen by a lodge of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers on the named railroad to represent them in collective bargaining and the handling of grievances with the said railroad, and the Committee has for many years been the duly designated bargaining representative for the craft of engineers on that railroad. The Grievance Committee of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, hereafter referred to as the Firemen's Committee, is a similar body set up by the lodges of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen on said railroad, and has for many years been the duly designated representative for collective bargaining of the craft of firemen on that railroad. As the background of this controversy, the record shows that since 1918 the craft of engineers and the craft of firemen each has had a formal agreement concerning rules, rates of pay, and working condition with such railroad, which have severally been modified in some particulars by later agreements and interpretations. These formal agreements were made while what is known as the Chicago Joint Agreement between the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen was in effect. This joint agreement between the two unions, made in 1913, undertook to regulate relationships between themselves, including the transfer of firemen to engineer's work, and vice-versa, and contained provision for compulsory and final settlement of any disputes between the two unions. This joint agreement was cancelled by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers in 1927, and there is now no union machinery for ending such a dispute between engineer's and firemen's crafts as exists here.

The dispute relates to the rules that shall apply in calling firemen, or engineers who have been demoted to firing, to take emergency runs as engineers, or to fill a vacancy in what is called a "pool" of engineers. The engineer's agreement of 1918, (Art. 38), asserted that the right to make and interpret contracts, rules, rates and working agreements for locomotive engineers shall be vested in the regularly constituted committees of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. The firemen's agreement (Art. 44) similarly asserted a like right as to firemen and hostlers in the Committees of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen. Yet both agreements contain rules for the demotion of engineers to be firemen, and the promotion of firemen to be engineers, and for their return to their former work. The rules in the two agreements are consistent, indeed substantially identical. Certain interpretations or agreements, favored by the engineers, relative to calling firemen for emergency service as engineers were made in the course of years, which caused dissatisfaction to the firemen. They complained to the railroad, which at first took the position that the matter was for negotiation only with the engineers' representative, but the firemen threatened to strike, and the Mediation Board was called in under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act. 45 U.S.C.A. § 155. It invited the Engineers' Committee to enter the negotiation, but that Committee refused. An agreement was negotiated under the auspices of the Mediation Board, which was satisfactory to the firemen but not to the engineers. The railroad thereupon, under the procedure prescribed in 45 U.S.C.A. § 156, cancelled its previous contrary interpretations or agreements with the Engineers' Committee. The Engineers' Committee then filed in the district court this petition, as one arising under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., in which it claimed for itself, as the bargaining representative of the engineers, the exclusive right to bargain with the railroad on the subject matter in dispute, and that its right has been denied by making the mediated agreement with the Firemen's Committee which therefore is void; and there being a present definite controversy thereabout, a declaration to the just stated effect is prayed. The Firemen's Committee was made a party, and it defended the mediation agreement and prayed for a declaration that it was valid and binding on all parties to this cause, subject to a contention that the Court was without jurisdiction of the subject matter. The Railroad prayed a declaration of the rights of all parties, for their guidance.

There is an acute controversy over a rule of service on the railroad which may have daily application. The questions raised are to be determined by the Railway Labor Act, a law of the United States, which is also a law relating to commerce. Jurisdiction therefore exists under 28 U.S. C.A. § 41(8); and the remedy by declaratory judgment is applicable, and appropriate; 28 U.S.C.A. § 400. The prohibitions touching injunctions in labor disputes do not apply, for no injunction is sought. No one is objecting to the two Committee's appearing as entities, instead of by the names of the persons composing them. We will raise no...