McMurray v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen

• Decision Date: 14 January 1931
• Docket Number: No. 2454.,2454.
• Citation: 50 F.2d 968
• Parties: McMURRAY et al. v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

50 F.2d 968 (1931)

McMURRAY et al. v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN et al.

No. 2454.

District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

January 14, 1931.

Van A. Barrickman and Daniel S. Horne, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs.

E. E. McMonigle and E. B. Strassburger, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.

GIBSON, District Judge.

The defendants have moved to dismiss the amended bill of complaint, basing their motion upon the contention that it does not set forth a case within the equitable powers of the court.

The bill is quite long and somewhat confusing. It sets forth one side of a controversy between two subordinate lodges of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, which was heard before all the tribunals of the brotherhood, with varying results, but with plaintiffs' lodge finally losing before the brotherhood's board of appeals. The dispute was, and is, in respect to seniority rights upon a "run" upon the Pennsylvania Railroad between Pittsburgh and Dennison, Ohio. The run in question is one known as an interseniority district run, that is, one not wholly within one seniority district. By regulations established by mutual agreement between the Pennsylvania Railroad and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, trainmen are entitled, ability and fitness being equal, to promotion or choice of runs according to seniority in service. The railroad is divided into a number of seniority districts, and each trainman, as a general proposition, is possessed of seniority rights only within his own district. The exception to this rule is found in connection with interseniority district road runs. As to such runs, a regulation, adopted April 1, 1927, by the railroad management and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and Order of Railroad Conductors, sets forth:

"3-C-1. (a) When inter-seniority district road runs are established, trainmen of the seniority districts over which such runs operate, will participate on the basis which the ratio of mileage in each seniority district bears to total mileage in such service."

Plaintiffs all reside within what is known among trainmen employed by the Panhandle Division of the Pennsylvania Railroad as the Carnegie Scully seniority district, and, 38 per cent. of the disputed run being within that district, under the regulation quoted, they claim seniority rights on the Dennison-Pittsburgh through run to the extent of 38 per cent., that is, that the Scully district employees should handle 38 per cent. of the through freight between Pittsburgh and Dennison.

The persons whose interests are in conflict with those of the plaintiffs, none of whom have been joined as defendants, are trainmen who are members of Local Lodge No. 421 of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen located at Dennison, Ohio. The bill of complaint is quite discursive and does not set forth a clear and continuous history of the freight operations on the Panhandle Division between Pittsburgh and Dennison prior to 1922 or 1923. As we read it, however, the bill states that immediately prior to the years last mentioned a large part of the freight was relayed at Collier yard (the limit of the Scully seniority district), and the rest was carried by through trains operated by trainmen of the Dennison district. In 1922 or 1923, the superintendent of the division discontinued a number of "regular assigned freight service crews" between the Carnegie Scully District and Dennison, and by that action it is alleged the tonnage to be carried was "automatically diverted" to the Dennison East Pool, and the Carnegie-Scully trainmen were deprived of all the through runs between Pittsburgh and Dennison. Local Lodge No. 571, of which plaintiffs are members, protested to the Railroad Management in respect to this action of the Superintendent, and asked a reinstatement of the former arrangement. Objection having been made (the bill does not state by whom) to this request, the controversy "was referred to the trainmen themselves, in order to reach an adjustment of the conditions existing, the conclusion reached to be submitted to the management of said railroad for their concurrence." Pursuant to this reference, a committee of the Brotherhood of Trainmen, with a subcommittee of the Order of Railroad Conductors and the Enginemen and Firemen, considered the matter and reported against the contention of Lodge No. 571 (plaintiffs). That lodge appealed to the full general committee of the brotherhood, which sustained plaintiffs' contentions. The Dennison East Trainmen, Lodge No. 421, thereupon appealed to the board of directors of the brotherhood, which sustained the action of the general committee. From this decision a further appeal was taken to the board of appeals of the brotherhood, the court of last resort within the order. By the constitution of the brotherhood (attached to bill), it is provided: "Such decision (of Board of Appeals) shall be the final adjudication of any and all rights and questions included in the appeal." The board of appeals sustained the contention of the opponents of Lodge No. 571, to which plaintiffs belong, and reversed the decision of the general committee, in...