Kelly v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry.

• Decision Date: 15 January 1948
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 603.
• Citation: 75 F. Supp. 737
• Parties: KELLY v. NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS RY.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

75 F. Supp. 737

KELLY v. NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS RY.

Civ. No. 603.

District Court, E. D. Tennessee, S. D.

January 15, 1948.

Ben Duggan and Joe Wheless, both of Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff.

Spurlock, Spears, Reynolds & Moore, of Chattanooga, Tenn., and Walton Whitwell, of Nashville, Tenn., for defendant.

DARR, District Judge.

By action heretofore taken only one defendant remains in the case, the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway.

Formerly the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a locomotive engineer under the terms of a collective bargaining contract made on behalf of the plaintiff and others by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. Under the terms of this contract a charge of misconduct was made against the plaintiff, and a hearing was had by the defendant's officials resulting in his discharge.

The plaintiff makes the claim that he was wrongfully discharged and in connection therewith his character was defamed whereby he brings suit under Tennessee law for (1) breach of contract and (2) libel.

Prior to the institution of this suit, the plaintiff's grievance was submitted to the National Railroad Adjustment Board for settlement under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.

Now comes the defendant and seeks a summary judgment for dismissal insofar as the suit is based upon breach of contract upon the ground that the plaintiff had elected to submit his complaints to the said Adjustment Board for settlement. In support of the motion for summary judgment the defendant has filed an affidavit and the deposition of the plaintiff taken for the purpose of discovery. No counter proof was offered by the plaintiff.

This case has been pending for sometime and has been once tried to a jury who failed to reach a verdict. The question now presented has been discussed from time to time during the pendency of the suit, but is now, for the first time, squarely presented for determination.

Plaintiff's attorneys have argued that the presentation to the National Railroad Adjustment Board of the plaintiff's grievance was not done by his request or consent, but in the plaintiff's said deposition he directly admits that he had taken his case to the Adjustment Board. In addition to this, he has stood by with knowledge and notice of what has been going on with reference to his claim. Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, on rehearing, 327 U.S. 661, 66 S.Ct. 721, 90 L.Ed. 928. Therefore, there can be no doubt of the plaintiff's initiation and maintenance of the proceedings for relief before the Adjustment Board.

The Railway Labor Act sets up a procedure and method by which an employee of a carrier who is aggrieved concerning his labor relations may submit his grievances to the Adjustment Board, but the remedy offered is not exclusive. Such employee may bring a suit at law to settle the dispute without first submitting the controversy to the Adjustment Board. Moore v. Illinois Central R. Co., 312 U.S. 630, 634, 61 S.Ct. 754, 85 L.Ed. 1089.

The question here is whether such employee, as is the plaintiff, may prosecute at the same time a suit at law in a court and a proceedings before the Adjustment Board concerning the same grievance.

The Railway Labor Act is especially set up whereby there may be voluntary adjustment of grievances like unto plaintiff's. The Adjustment Board may give complete relief by ordering the reinstatement of the employee without disturbance of his seniority and award him pay for all time lost. This directive of the Adjustment Board may be judicially reviewed and administered, the conclusions of the Board being prima facie evidence of its truthfulness. Therefore, the action of the Adjustment Board is not merely advisory. Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 65 S.Ct. 1282, 89 L.Ed. 1886.

The exact question here posed does not seem to have been judicially determined. But there are several cases discussing and deciding whether an aggrieved employee coming under said Act must exhaust his administrative remedy before he can be heard by a court. The courts have answered this question in the negative. Moore v. Illinois Central R. Co., supra.

However, in an equity case asking for injunctive relief and requiring interpretations of intricate agreements, the Supreme Court has announced that a District Court should stay the proceedings on the application for an injunction to give an opportunity for application to the Adjustment Board for an interpretation of the agreements. Order of Railway Conductors of America v. Pitney, 326 U.S. 561, 66 S.Ct. 322, 90 L.Ed. 318. This decision recognizes the adequate authority and peculiar competency of the agency set up by the Railway Labor Act to settle such controversies.

The case of Washington Terminal Co. v. Boswell, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 124 F.2d 235, affirmed 319 U.S. 732, 63 S.Ct. 1430, 87 L.Ed. 1694, has bearing upon the question presented. This case contains interesting discussion and comments on the history and effect of the Railway Labor Act. In this case the Adjustment Board had made an award. Thereafter and before the two years permitted by the Act for judicial review, the carrier brought a separate action seeking a declaratory judgment. The court concluded that the suit was premature as having been brought before the time had elapsed for the employees to institute...