Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Arthur L. Mills, Herbert Burgess And Frank R. Benton, . Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 26 April 1934
• Docket Number: Civil 3321
• Citation: 31 P.2d 971,43 Ariz. 379
• Parties: GRAND INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN et al., Appellants, v. ARTHUR L. MILLS, HERBERT BURGESS and FRANK R. BENTON, Appellees. GRAND INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN et al., Appellants, v. J. E. ANDERSON and JAMES F. MARTIN, Appellees
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

31 P.2d 971

43 Ariz. 379

GRAND INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN et al., Appellants, v. ARTHUR L. MILLS, HERBERT BURGESS and FRANK R. BENTON, Appellees. GRAND INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN et al., Appellants, v. J. E. ANDERSON and JAMES F. MARTIN, Appellees

Civil No. 3321

Supreme Court of Arizona

April 26, 1934

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Pima. Fred W. Fickett, Judge. Judgmentreversed and case remanded with instructions to render judgment in favor of defendants.

Mr Thomas Stevenson, Mr. C. E. Weisell and Messrs. Conner &amp Jones, for Appellants Other Than Southern Pacific Company.

Mr Francis M. Hartman, for Southern Pacific Company.

Mr Carl R. Tisor, Mr. George O. Hilzinger, Mr. Leslie C. Hardy and Mr. Samuel L. Pattee, for Appellees.

OPINION

LOCKWOOD, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Pima county requiring the Southern Pacific Company, a corporation, hereinafter called the Company, to grant certain seniority rights of service to the plaintiffs, who are railroad engineers and firemen in its employ, and enjoining the other defendants from interfering with the rights so ordered to be granted by the Company. We think the best manner of disposing of the appeal is to state first the undisputed facts as a result of which suit was brought, and afterwards to discuss the legal questions raised thereby, in such manner as seems advisable.

The Company is, and for many years has been, a corporation engaged in the operation of one of the main transcontinental railroads, and employs many men in its train service. A large number of these men belong to two voluntary unincorporated associations, the first being the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, which we shall hereinafter call the Engineers, which is composed of qualified locomotive engineers in the United States and Canada, and comprises within its membership a large majority of the persons employed as locomotive engineers in those countries. Its membership is organized into local bodies called divisions, each division having its own local officers. Its supreme governing body is known as the Grand International Division, whose chief executive is the Grand Chief Engineer, there being a number of other executive officers known as Assistant Grand Chief Engineers. This brotherhood, in its various activities, is governed by a constitution, statutes, and standing rules.

The other association is called the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, which we shall hereinafter call the Firemen, and is composed of both firemen and engineers in the United States and Canada, and comprises within its membership a large majority of the men employed as firemen on the railroads of the two countries. Its membership is divided into local bodies which are known as lodges, and its supreme governing body is known as the convention, which triennially chooses an international president and a number of vice-presidents. It also is governed by a constitution, statutes and various rules.

Each local division of the Engineers and lodge of the Firemen has a committee for the purpose of handling local matters of controversy with the local officers of the railroad company for which its members work. In the Engineers this committee is known as the local committee of adjustment, and in the Firemen as the local grievance committee. On each railroad system there is organized a general committee of each brotherhood, which in the case of the Engineers is known as the general committee of adjustment, and in the case of the Firemen as the general grievance committee. These two general committees are composed of the chairmen of the local committees above referred to. In the case of a large railroad system, there are usually many local divisions and lodges, and the general committees would therefore have as many members as there are divisions or lodges along the line of the railroad. The powers and duties of these general committees are defined in the respective laws of the brotherhoods. Generally speaking, it is one of the functions of the general committee of adjustment of the Engineers to negotiate agreements between the members of its brotherhood working for the particular railroad on which the local divisions represented in such general committee of adjustment exist, and the general grievance committee of Firemen does the same for the members of its brotherhood. Each of these general committees selects from among its membership a general chairman, whose powers are fixed by the constitution and laws of the brotherhoods, and generally are coextensive with the powers of the general committees themselves, when the latter are not in session.

For many years written agreements have been in existence between the Company and the two brotherhoods governing the rates of pay and working conditions of members of the brotherhoods on the lines of the Company; the last ones prior to the beginning of this controversy being entered into as of December 29, 1922. Among other things, these agreements provided for what is known as "seniority rights" of the members of the respective brotherhoods. Seniority, as applied to trainmen, means, in substance, that a man employed as either an engineer or fireman shall be entitled to preference in the matter of choice of and right to work in his occupation, in accordance with the length of time he has been employed as such engineer or fireman by the company for which he works. This right of seniority, however, does not necessarily apply over the whole railroad system on a part of which he is working, as the system, if long, is divided into a number of seniority divisions, and the seniority of an engineer or fireman is confined exclusively to his own district, and does not give him any rights whatever in another seniority district.

On the 29th of December, 1922, the lines of the Company were divided into eleven seniority districts, among these being what is known as the Tucson district, which covered the tracks of the Company between Yuma and El Paso. Prior to the 1st day of December, 1924, another railroad corporation, the Arizona Eastern by name, owned and operated a line running from what is called Pozo Junction, through Phoenix to Hassayampa, one from Phoenix to Maricopa, and one from Bowie to Miami. It also had operating agreements with the two brotherhoods, and by these agreements was divided into two seniority district, one called the Globe district, which covered its lines from Bowie to Miami, and the other called the Phoenix district, comprising the balance of its road.

Some time in the latter part of the year 1923, J. A. FORD, who was then general chairman of the grievance committee of Firemen on the Southern Pacific System, was informed by R. McIntyre, assistant general manager of the Company, that plans were being made to consolidate the Arizona Eastern with the Company, and that it wished advice and instructions as to what should be done in regard to the respective seniorities of the men on the two roads. On December 20th of that year, Ford wrote to D. B. Robertson, who was then president of the Firemen, asking for his advice and instructions as to what should be done. Robertson replied, expressing his views fully. Nearly a year later, and on October 18, 1924, G. W. Burbank, who was general chairman of the adjustment committee of the Engineers, wrote to Grand Chief Engineer L. G. Griffing, informing him in regard to the proposed merger, and asking for instructions as to what the Engineers should do. To this the latter replied in effect that the seniority districts could not be merged without a vote of the men. On November 23, 1924, McIntyre notified all of the chairmen of both organizations involved that the merger was about to take effect and that seniority rights would have to be adjusted, and requested a conference for that purpose. Before any action was taken in regard to this question, a new agreement was made, effective as of September 1, 1924, but not actually concluded until December 16th of that year, which contained the following provision: "Without change in present working rules, except as indicated herein, the management and committees will arrange to revise current schedules to conform to this agreement," which was signed by the general chairmen of the committees of both brotherhoods on the lines of both the Company and the Arizona Eastern, and was duly approved by the national officers of the brotherhoods.

On January 23, 1925, a conference was held between the general chairmen of the committees and a representative of the Company, apparently in pursuance of McIntyre's request of November 3, 1924, and the following agreement was made between them:

"Memorandum of Agreement

"At conference held January 23, 1925, the following understanding was reached with respect to adjustments of seniority and rearrangement of seniority lists between former Tucson Division, Southern Pacific Company, and former Globe and Phoenix Divisions of the Arizona Eastern Railroad, affecting engineers, firemen, and hostlers.

"(1) Seniority lists of the above named divisions will be merged each engineer, fireman and hostler taking rank on the merged lists in accordance with date shown on the separate respective seniority lists as of December 1, 1924.

"(2) Where two or more named on the merged lists bear the same date, their relative standing shall be in accordance with the time they performed first service on their original district referred to above.

"(3) Enginemen on each seniority district merged will have priority rights to assignments held as of December 1, 1924 unless...