Gunther v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Co.
Decision Date | 15 April 1958 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 2080. |
Citation | 161 F. Supp. 295 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Parties | F. J. GUNTHER, Petitioner, v. SAN DIEGO & ARIZONA EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant. |
Hildebrand, Bills & McLeod, Oakland, Cal., Charles W. Decker, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
Gray, Cary, Ames & Frye, James W. Archer, Eugene L. Freeland, San Diego, Cal., Burton Mason, W. A. Gregory, Harold S. Lentz, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant.
Plaintiff has asked this Court for an order (1) "enforcing the award and order of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, First Division, in said Adjustment Board proceeding, Docket No. 33-531," (2) "For an order of this Court requiring defendant to reinstate petitioner to active service on the `run' to which his seniority entitles him under said Agreement," (3) "For damages in the amount required to compensate petitioner for wages and other monetary contractual benefits lost by reason of the premises,"
Plaintiff alleges jurisdiction of this Court exists under the provisions of 45 U.S.C.A. § 153(p), and this appears to be the sole ground upon which jurisdiction is urged.
Subsection (o) of said section provides that in case of an award by the Board in favor of petitioner, the division "shall make an order, directed to the carrier, to make the award effective" and subsection (p) provides that "if a carrier does not comply with an order of a division of the Adjustment Board within the time limit in such order, the petitioner * * may file in the District Court of the United States * * * a petition setting forth briefly the causes for which he claims relief, and the order of the division of the Adjustment Board * * *". The subsection further provides that "on the trial of such suit the findings and order of the division * * shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated * * *". "The district courts are empowered, * * * to make such order and enter such judgment, by writ of mandamus or otherwise, as may be appropriate to enforce or set aside the order of the division of the Adjustment Board."
The complaint sets forth in full the "findings, award and order" of the Board, as Exhibit "A"; in effect the findings recite that shortly after his 71st birthday plaintiff was disqualified from service by the company's chief surgeon on the basis of a physical examination by a company physician and that later, the carrier's chief surgeon, after an examination, determined that plaintiff should not be returned to service. The plaintiff was then examined by another physician of his own choosing, and appealed to the Board for reinstatement with seniority rights unimpaired and pay for all time lost.
The Board stated:
(Emphasis supplied.)
The findings continue:
The Act creating the National Railroad Adjustment Board represents a considered effort on the part of Congress to provide effective and desirable administrative remedies for adjustment of railroad-employee disputes growing out of the interpretation of existing agreements. Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U.S. 239, 243, 70 S.Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gunther v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Co.
...and we ruled that the record before us did not reveal an award and order with which the railroad had refused to comply. Gunther v. San Diego, D.C., 161 F.Supp. 295. On July 15, 1958 further proceedings were stayed because petitioner stated he had filed a petition before the Board for an int......
-
Hodges v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company
...by the District Court. Smith v. Louisville & Nashville R. R., D.C.Ala., 1953, 112 F.Supp. 388; Gunther v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Ry., S.D.Calif., 1958, 161 F.Supp. 295; 1961, 192 F.Supp. 882; 1961, 198 F.Supp. 402. The Court on remand should therefore enter appropriate orders to effect......
-
Gainey v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY & STEAM. CLERKS, ETC.
...to adjust grievances and disputes of the type covered by the Act is exclusive" are collected in Gunther v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Co., D.C.S.D.Calif.1958, 161 F.Supp. 295, 297. Thus, even had there been an agreement as to pay equalization, it does not follow that this court wou......
-
Russ v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
...merely presumptive in value, having effect fairly comparable to that of expert testimony." In a dictum in Gunther v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Co., D.C., 161 F.Supp. 295, 297, the Court "The Act creating the National Railroad Adjustment Board represents a considered effort on the ......