In re Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 8556.

• Decision Date: 25 September 1944
• Docket Number: No. 8556.,8556.
• Citation: 145 F.2d 351
• Parties: In re CENTRAL R. CO. OF NEW JERSEY. ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS OF AMERICA et al. v. PITNEY et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

145 F.2d 351 (1944)

In re CENTRAL R. CO. OF NEW JERSEY ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS OF AMERICA et al. v. PITNEY et al.

No. 8556.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued June 20, 1944.

Decided September 25, 1944.

Rehearing Denied November 16, 1944.

V. C. Shuttleworth, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Carpenter, Gilmour & Dwyer, and Carl S. Kuebler, all of Jersey City, N.J., on the brief), for appellant.

John J. McElhinny, of New York City (Howard L. Kern, of New York City, on the brief), for Trustees of Central R. Co.

Harry Lane, of Jersey City, N.J. (Carey & Lane, of Jersey City, N. J., on the brief), for intervenor-respondent.

Before BRATTON^* and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges, and KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

BRATTON, Circuit Judge.

Central Railroad Company of New Jersey is in process of reorganization under Section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended, 11 U.S.C.A. § 205. The reorganization proceeding is pending in the United States Court for New Jersey. Order of Railway Conductors of America, hereinafter called O.R.C., is the accredited representative under the Railway Labor Act, as amended, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., of road conductors in the service of the company. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, hereinafter referred to as B.R.T., is the accredited representative of yard conductors in the service of the company in the New York Harbor Terminal Territory. The O.R.C. filed in the reorganization proceeding a petition seeking to restrain the trustees of the carrier from manning with yard conductors five daily freight trains or services commonly called the Bayway and Standard Oil drills. It was alleged in the petition that for some time past road conductors had manned the drills under the rules, rates of pay, and working conditions negotiated by and between O.R.C. and the carrier; that it was the intention of the carrier to displace road conductors on such drills with yard conductors; and that no notice of the intended change had been given as required by Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act. The trustees answered, and B.R.T. intervened. The matter was referred to a master. The master took testimony and submitted an intermediate report and a final report. The court entered an order determining that yard conductors were entitled to man the drills in question, and dismissing the petition. The appeal is from that order.

Taking up the question of jurisdiction of the court, subdivision a of Section 77, supra, 11 U.S.C.A. § 205a, provides that if the petition for reorganization is approved the court "shall have and may exercise in addition to the powers conferred by this section all the powers * * * which a Federal court would have had if it had appointed a receiver in equity of the property of the debtor for any purpose." It is clear that if this provision stood alone, a court in which a proceeding for reorganization is pending would have jurisdiction to determine a controversy of this kind between two groups of conductors, and to direct the trustees accordingly. But subsection n provides that in proceedings under the section, no judge or trustee acting under the Act shall change the wages or working conditions of railroad employees except in the manner prescribed in the Railway Labor Act, as amended, or as it may be amended. Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, 45 U.S.C.A. § 152, provides that a carrier shall not change the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions of its employees, as a class, as embodied in agreements, except in the manner prescribed in such agreements or in Section 6 of the Act. And Section 6, 45 U.S.C.A. § 156, provides that carriers and representatives of employees shall give at least thirty days written notice of an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions; that the time and place for the beginning of conference between representatives of the parties in interest shall be agreed upon within ten days after receipt of the notice; that such time shall be within the thirty days provided in the notice; and that in every case where the notice has been given, or conferences are being held, or the services of the Mediation Board have been requested, or the Board has proffered its services, rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon by the Board, unless a period of ten days has elapsed after termination of the conferences without request for or proffer of the services of the Board. The Act contains many other provisions not necessary to outline in detail.

The history of the legislation in relation to the settlement of railway labor disputes, and the continued Congressional policy of encouraging the amicable adjustment of such disputes, manifested by the enactment of the Railway Labor Act, has been adequately reviewed and need not be repeated or recapitulated here. Texas & New Orleans Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, 281 U.S. 548, 50 S.Ct. 427, 74 L.Ed. 1034; Virginian Railway Co. v. System Federation Railway Employees, 300 U.S. 515, 57 S.Ct. 592, 81 L.Ed. 789; Moore v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 312 U.S. 630, 61 S.Ct. 754, 85 L.Ed. 1089; Switchmen's Union v. National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297, 64 S.Ct. 95; General Committee of Adjustment v....