Griffin v. Chicago Union Station Co.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 14368.,14368. |
| Citation | 13 F. Supp. 722 |
| Parties | GRIFFIN v. CHICAGO UNION STATION CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Poppenhusen, Johnston, Thompson & Raymond, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Michael L. Igoe, U. S. Dist. Atty., and Leo J. Hassenauer, First Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty., both of Chicago, Ill., for National R. R. Adjustment Board, First Div.
Theodore Schmidt, of Chicago, Ill., for Chicago Union Station Co. J. Kendall S. Mitchell, of Chicago, Ill., for defendants Hodges, Nord, Atwater, Murray, Bates, Barrett and Kovecheff.
The plaintiff, Griffin, is a switch tender in the employ of Chicago Union Station Company and, as an employee of said company, held certain seniority rights. Defendant Chicago Union Station Company is a carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad. The defendant National Railroad Adjustment Board, First Division, is a board established by and pursuant to the authority of an Act of Congress of May 20, 1926 (chapter 347, § 3, 44 Stat. 578), as amended by the Act of Congress of June 21, 1934 (chapter 691, § 3, 48 Stat. 1189 45 U.S.C.A. § 153). Other defendants are the members and secretary of said National Railroad Adjustment Board, First Division, and certain other switch tenders, who were affected by the order of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, First Division, hereinafter referred to, and who will be affected by any decree made in this case.
Plaintiff, Griffin, was for a long time employed as a switch tender and his name appeared on the switch tenders' seniority list. Then, he was transferred to other work, where he remained for a period of ten years. Whether the other work was such as was ordinarily performed by switch tenders is one of the questions in the case. During this period the plaintiff's name did not appear on the switch tenders' seniority list. At the end of the ten-year period, the position which the plaintiff then held was abolished, his name was restored to the switch tenders' seniority list, with seniority dating from his first employment as a switch tender, and, because his name was high on the seniority list, he immediately went to work as a switch tender. The restoration of plaintiff's name to the switch tender's seniority list, with seniority dating from his first employment as a switch tender, resulted in plaintiff's displacing other switch tenders. These other switch tenders either are, or are represented by, defendants in this case.
After the plaintiff's name was restored to the switch tender's seniority list and plaintiff was put to work as a switch tender, complaint was made by and on behalf of the switch tenders who had been displaced to the National Railroad Adjustment Board, First Division. That board noticed the Chicago Union Station Company to appear. That company did appear and hearing was had before the board. The hearing resulted in depriving the plaintiff of seniority rights dating from his first employment as a switch tender, which rights had been accorded him by the Union Station Company, and in the restoration of the other switch tenders to the places which they respectively held on the seniority list prior to the plaintiff's restoration thereto.
The question as to the place which the plaintiff should hold on the switch tenders' seniority list is of great consequence to the plaintiff because if he does not have the seniority which was accorded him by the Union Station Company and is compelled to take the seniority accorded him by the Railroad Adjustment Board, First Division, he will, because of the shortage of employment, be without employment. The decision is likewise of great importance to the other switch tenders who were displaced by plaintiff's restoration to a high place on the seniority list. One of these men will be without employment because of such restoration, and the others will be reduced one grade.
Plaintiff was not notified of the hearing before the Railroad Adjustment Board, First Division. On behalf of the plaintiff it is contended that the order of the board, rendered without notice to him, deprives him of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. On behalf of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, First...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephenson v. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co.
...made are not left without remedy in all of the courts of the land. As held in the case of Griffin v. Chicago Union Station Co. (I). C.), 13 F.Supp. 722, seniority rights of an employee constitute property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Paragraph (p), ......
-
Williams v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
... ... Mo. 341; Murphee v. Brotherhood, etc., 173 P.2d 926; ... Griffin v. Gulf, etc., R. Co., 21 So.2d 814; ... Alquist v. Alaska-Portland ... 673, 57 ... S.Ct. 612; Griffin v. Chicago Union Station, 13 ... F.Supp. 722; Evans v. L. & N.R. Co., 191 Ga. 395, ... ...
-
Ledford v. Chicago, M., St. P.&P.R. Co.
...to have been adopted in conformity with the prediction made by the dissenters in the Supreme Court of Mississippi. In Griffin v. Union Station, D.C., 13 F.Supp. 722, it appeared that Griffin held seniority rights as a switchtender but was transferred to other work, and for 10 years his name......
-
Williams v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co.
...N.R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 65 S. Ct. 226; Nord v. Griffin, 86 F. (2d) 481, certiorari denied 300 U.S. 673, 57 S. Ct. 612; Griffin v. Chicago Union Station, 13 F. Supp. 722; Evans v. L. & N.R. Co., 191 Ga. 395, 12 S.E. (2d) 611; Stephenson v. N.O. & N.E.R. Co., 177 So. 509; Watson v. M., K. & T......