Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Bryant

• Decision Date: 27 March 1936
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. BRYANT et al. BRYANT et al. v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

92 S.W.2d 749

263 Ky. 578

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. BRYANT et al.

BRYANT et al. v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

March 27, 1936

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bullitt County.

Action by B. F. Bryant and another against the Louisville &amp Nashville Railroad Company. From part of the judgment rendered, defendant appeals and cross-appeals, and, from another part, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed on plaintiffs' appeal, and reversed on defendant's original and cross appeal, with directions.

Ashby M. Warren and Woodward, Hamilton & Hobson, all of Louisville for Louisville & N. R. Co.

C. P Bradbury and T. C. Carroll, both of Shepherdsville, for Bryant and Roller.

J. V Conner and A. B. Bensinger, both of Louisville, for Order of Railway Conductors.

Crawford Middleton, Milner & Seelbach, of Louisville, for Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and J. L. Starks.

MORRIS, Commissioner.

The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company operates a line of railway from Louisville to Corbin known as the "Lebanon branch," and from Louisville to Bowling Green known as "main stem first division." All trains on both of the branches use the same track between Louisville and Lebanon Junction, a distance of about 30 miles.

B. F. Bryant and W. C. Roller, formerly conductors, were demoted to brakemen on account of the depression, and were working extra with seniority rights attached to the Lebanon branch. Claiming that under the agreement between the railroad and its employees they and other employees similarly situated were entitled to operate and man all trains on the Lebanon branch between Louisville and Corbin, Bryant and Roller brought this action against the railroad, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and the Order of Railway Conductors, for a declaration of their rights. Later certain employees of the main line branch were made parties defendant. After the institution of the action, the railroad company discharged plaintiffs for bringing this suit without proceeding in the order, and pleaded, among other defenses, that they were not entitled to maintain the action. Plaintiffs replied that their discharge was in violation of article 31 of the agreement between the railroad company and its employees providing that trainmen will not be demerited, disciplined, or discharged without just cause, and was therefore invalid. The court adjudged that the action of the railroad in discharging plaintiffs was void and that they were entitled to maintain the action. The court further adjudged that trainmen should continue to be assigned to trains operating over the Lebanon branch from Louisville to Corbin, from the Lebanan branch seniority district or division, and from the main line district or division on the mileage percentage basis. From that part of the order adjudging the discharge of plaintiffs to be void, the railroad company appeals, and also prosecutes a cross-appeal. From that part of the order construing the agreement unfavorably to plaintiffs, they appeal.

The principal question for determination is the proper construction of article 28, formerly article 31, of the agreement between the railroad company and its trainmen, reading: "When trainmen are on runs that extend over more than one division, the number of trainmen on such runs will be furnished by each division in proportion to the number of miles made on each division."

The evidence shows that in the year 1919 there was a dispute between passenger trainmen on the Lebanon branch and the main line branch, and an opinion was rendered by the vice president of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen holding that article 31 did not apply to trainmen on the main stem first division. In the year 1924 certain freight runs were established between Louisville and Corbin. Trainmen were assigned to these districts both from the Lebanon branch seniority district and the Louisville-Bowling Green seniority district on a mileage percentage basis. The trainmen on the Lebanon branch contended that they should have the exclusive right to operate the freight trains. In the manner provided by the rules and regulations of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen the question was submitted to a subcommittee of the brotherhood authorized to decide the controversy. On April 25, 1924, the subcommittee decided that through freight trains from Louisville to Corbin should be operated under the mileage percentage basis by trainmen from the two seniority districts. On appeal to the board of directors of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, the decision of the subcommittee was affirmed. On appeal to the board of appeals, the highest tribunal in the organization for the settlement of controversies and disputes, the board rendered an opinion on November 8, 1924, affirming the decision of the subcommittee and board of directors. From that time on the decision was followed, and through freight trains from Louisville to Corbin were operated by trainmen from the two seniority districts on the mileage percentage basis. In the year 1931 the question was again raised, the same procedure followed, and the same decision reached.

Article 21, section 4, the corresponding clause, of conductors' agreement, reads: "When runs are operated over two or more seniority districts, conductors on districts involved will exercise seniority on mileage percentage basis based on miles run over each seniority district." The only evidence bearing on the question was to the effect that the word "division" in the agreement under consideration and the words "seniority districts" are used interchangeably and have always been construed as having the same meaning.

The main line branch and the Lebanon branch belong to the same superintendent's division. If the word "division" in the article under consideration means "superintendent's division," then the trainmen of the main line branch are not entitled to share in the runs in question; but, if the word "division" means "seniority division" or "seniority district," then they are entitled to share in the runs. In the argument against the conclusion of the court, the point is stressed that the conductors' agreement refers to seniority districts, while the trainmen's agreement refers to divisions. It is not probable that the brotherhoods and carrier intended that the status of brakemen should be different from that of conductors, and the employment of different terms is more persuasive of the fact that they were intended to have the same, rather than a different, meaning. Indeed, there would seem to be more reason for employees on different branches of the same superintendent's division to share in the runs than for employees on separate and...