Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen

• Decision Date: 31 March 1949
• Docket Number: No. 48 C 1218.,48 C 1218.
• Citation: 83 F. Supp. 930
• Parties: ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS OF AMERICA, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

83 F. Supp. 930

ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS OF AMERICA, et al.

No. 48 C 1218.

United States District Court N. D. Illinois, E. D.

March 31, 1949.

V. W. Foster, C. A. Helsell, J. H. Wright and Herbert Deany, all of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

Adams, Nelson & Williamson, of Chicago, Ill., for defendants.

SULLIVAN, District Judge.

On August 23, 1948, the Illinois Central Railroad Company filed its complaint for declaratory judgment, setting out that it is a civil proceeding arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, particularly Section 274d of the Judicial Code, Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 400 now §§ 2201, 2202 and the Railway Labor Act, Title 45 U.S.C.A. Chapter 8.

The complaint alleges that the Railroad has in its employ at certain points on its lines where terminal or freight yards are located a class of workmen known as carmen whose duties are to inspect, maintain and keep in repair the cars of the plaintiff and the appurtenances thereto, including brakes, knuckles, grabirons, air hose, steam hose, etc. That in the performance of their work carmen frequently couple or uncouple the air and steam hose between cars, between train and engine, or between the train and caboose, while trains are in yards, terminals, or repair tracks, and on trains while being broken up or made up in terminals and in yards where carmen are employed and immediately available to do this work. That this work was and still is a necessary and incidental part of the duties of conductors and trainmen engaged in the movement of trains. That disputes arose between the two classes of employees as to which had the duty of coupling or uncoupling air and steam hose at points where carmen were employed and immediately available to do such work. As a result of such disputes and in an effort to conciliate all factions and to expedite the handling of plaintiff's business, plaintiff, on September 19, 1911, at the request of defendants, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and Order of Railway Conductors of America, promulgated a rule published in the Schedule and adopted by plaintiff and the Trainmen and Railway Conductors, which reads as follows: "Trainmen will not be required to couple or uncouple air or steam hose where carmen are employed," which rule continued in force and was adopted and incorporated in the Schedules effective May 31, 1924, and January 1, 1936. That from the time of the adoption of this Rule, and up to the present, trainmen and conductors were required by plaintiff to perform the work of coupling and uncoupling air and steam hose at points where carmen were employed at times when such work was incidental to the work of moving plaintiff's trains and at points and at times when carmen, although employed, were either not on duty or were on duty and not in the vicinity and immediately available to perform such work. During all these years the work was performed by trainmen and conductors in this manner and was considered in conformity with the rule, the intent of which was to relieve trainmen and conductors from such work only when these employees and carmen were both present and in the immediate proximity of and available for such work. That on January 1, 1936, plaintiff entered into a revised written Schedule with the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, covering rates of pay, rules and working conditions for trainmen operating freight and passenger trains over plaintiff's lines; copy of said Schedule is attached to the complaint marked Exhibit A. That on May 31, 1924, plaintiff entered into a revised written Schedule with the Order of Railway Conductors of America, covering rates of pay, rules and working conditions for conductors operating freight and passenger trains over plaintiff's lines, copy of said Schedule being attached to the complaint and marked Exhibit B. That Schedules A and B set out the rates of pay and rules governing working conditions under which all conductors and trainmen in the freight and passenger service are to perform their duties. That Article 54 of the Schedule with the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen provides: "Trainmen shall not be required to couple or uncouple air or steam hose where carmen are employed." Article 52 of the Schedule with the Order of Railway Conductors provides: "Conductors will not be required to couple or uncouple air or steam hose where carmen are employed." That based upon the provisions of Article 54 and Article 52 of said Schedules certain individual defendants now seek to place an entirely new construction on the aforesaid Articles by presenting claims for an additional day's pay for coupling and uncoupling air hose at various points on plaintiff's lines. That there is no basis in Schedules A and B for the allowance of such additional pay and plaintiff has refused to honor such claims. That plaintiff is entitled to have the rights and other legal relations between itself and the defendants under said Schedules determined and declaratory judgment rendered to that end. The complaint then asks that this court render declaratory judgment in favor of plaintiff decreeing that Article 54 and Article 52, which provide that trainmen or conductors "will not be required to couple or uncouple air or steam hose where carmen are employed" are directory only, and do not entirely relieve conductors and trainmen from doing this work and do not afford any basis for a claim for additional compensation when conductors or trainmen couple or uncouple air or steam hose at points where carmen are employed in order that their trains may be moved with reasonable dispatch. And further that conductors and trainmen are not entitled to additional compensation for doing this work at points where carmen are employed but not on duty, or not immediately available in the proximity of the work. And that there is no provision in the Schedules of rates of pay, rules and working conditions of conductors and trainmen to warrant plaintiff in allowing an additional day's pay for doing this work at points where carmen are employed. That the court render such other judgment relief as may be proper and equitable, and decree that plaintiff be awarded such costs as may be incurred in this proceeding.

On October 4, 1948, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and affidavit in support thereof on the following grounds:

1. Whether indispensable parties defendant have been omitted from this suit.

2. Whether the employees sought to be bound by this action are before the court.

3. Whether the complaint presents a justiciable controversy.

4. Whether the complaint presents a proper case for declaratory judgment relief.

I shall first dispose of the question of whether the complaint presents a justiciable controversy.

Plaintiff contends that this is an action on a written contract, and involves only the issue of the construction of a revised written Schedule dated January 1, 1936, between plaintiff and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, covering rates of pay, rules and working conditions for trainmen operating freight and passenger trains over the lines of plaintiff; and a revised written Schedule dated May 31, 1924, between plaintiff and the Order of Railway Conductors of America, covering rates of pay, rules and working conditions for conductors operating freight and passenger trains over the lines of plaintiff.

Defendants urge that the particular claims to which the complaint makes reference in Paragraph 20 were, pursuant to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act and the rules and regulations of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, referred to and filed with the First Division of the Board by notice mailed, on July 30, 1948, to the Executive Secretary of the First Division. On August 2, 1948, the Executive Secretary of the First Division served notice on plaintiff of the filing of the dispute with the Board. On August 19, 1948, the Brotherhood made an "ex parte" submission, that is, it stated the employee's position as to the claims pursuant to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act and the rules and regulations of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, First Division. The present suit was filed by plaintiff on August 23. 1948.

In opposition, plaintiff has filed an affidavit of the Executive Secretary of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, stating that the instant dispute has not been docketed or given a docket number, which indicates that the First Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board has not assumed jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action.

From the pleadings and the briefs I conclude that trainmen and conductor employees of plaintiff have for many years worked under a variety of contracts containing various provisions as to coupling and uncoupling of air or steam hose, and that there has been disagreement between plaintiff and the trainmen and conductor employees as to the interpretation of...