Mosshamer v. Wabash Ry. Co.

Decision Date29 December 1922
Docket NumberNo. 12.,12.
Citation221 Mich. 407,191 N.W. 210
PartiesMOSSHAMER et al. v. WABASH RY. CO. et al.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Guy E. Smith, Judge.

Bill by Jesse Paul Mosshamer, Charles J. Durrant, Louis M. Hartline, Charles L. Meyers, and Charles M. Newell against the Wabash Railway Company and others. The bill was dismissed as to the first-named plaintiff, and from the decree for other four plaintiffs against the defendants, the defendants appeal. Decree reversed, and bill dismissed.

Argued before FELLOWS, C. J., and WIEST, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, and STEERE, JJ.Beaumont, Smith & Harris, of Detroit, (Albert E. Meder, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant Wabash Ry. Co.

Oscar J. Horn, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellants Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Fred Wurthsmith Division 831, B. of L. E., Palm Lodge 532, B. of L. F. & E.

Denton Guinness and Robert M. Brownson, both of Detroit, for appellees.

FELLOWS, C. J.

The original bill in this case was filed by Jesse Paul Mosshamer against defendant Wabash Railway Company. Mosshamer was a locomotive engineer in the yard of the railway at its Detroit terminal. Such engineers are known as yard ‘fixtures.’ He sought by his bill to restrain the company from putting into force certain schedules and orders which he claimed affected his seniority rights, and which orders were made by the company in acquiescence with a ruling of the Grand Chief Engineer of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the President of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen. Mosshamer himself had no definite contract of employment with the company and was not a member of either brotherhood. The company conducts an ‘open shop.’ Later the bill was amended by adding the other plaintiffs and defendants. The defendant Grand International Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers is made up of locomotive engineers and will be hereafter called the Engineers' Brotherhood. The defendant Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen is made up of both engineers and firemen, but the firemen predominate. It will hereafter be called the Firemen's Brotherhood. Both brotherhoods are voluntary associations and have local divisions at Detroit, which divisions are also made defendants. The four added plaintiffs belong to the Engineers' Brotherhood, and one of them belongs to both. While the Wabash Railway Company conducts an open shop, it has an agreement with both brotherhoods, that portion dealing with the engineers being of importance here.

The bill was dismissed as to plaintiff Mosshamer, and, as he has not appealed, we need not consider his claims further. Injunctive relief was granted in favor of the four added plaintiffs against all the defendants, and all defendants appeal. It is the claim of the present plaintiffs as to the defendant Wabash Railway Company that they are in its employ; that the agreement between the officers of the Engineers' Brotherhood and the officers of the company was made by the Engineers' Brotherhood as agents for these plaintiffs and others; that it granted these plaintiffs certain seniority rights which the railway company is bound to respect, and that they are entitled to restrain by injunction the breach of such contract and the withdrawal from then of their seniority rights therein recognized. As to the defendant brotherhoods, plaintiffs insist that a ruling made by Grand Chief Engineer of the Engineers' Brotherhood and the President of the Firemen's Brotherhood, the highest officers in these brotherhoods, construing the agreement between the railway company and the Brotherhoods, and which construction was accepted by the railway company, was without jurisdiction; that it was not made in accordance with the laws of the order; that it was wrong and seriously affected their seniority rights.

Many interesting questions are discussed which, in the view we take of the case, need not be decided at this time. If we accede to the plaintiffs' full contention that the agreement between the company and the brotherhoods was made by the brotherhoods as their agents and for their benefit, and that they therefore have a binding agreement with the company, a contention we do not deem it necessary at this time to either accept or reject, still these plaintiffs would not be entitled to an injunction from a court of equity restraining the company from breaching its contract. This question has been definitely settled by two recent opinions of this court handed down since the decree in the instant case was made. Schwartz v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 217 Mich. 384, 186 N. W. 522;Schwartz v. Cigar Makers' International Union, 219 Mich. 589, 189 N. W. 55. Both of these opinions dealt with the same litigation. They involved a much stronger case than the one now before us. There was in that case a contract for the employment of a definite number of union men for a definite period. But it is not the function of the courts to say to the employer by mandatory injunction, You must employ A. and discharge B. If A. has a contract with the employer which is breached, the court of law is always open to him to recover the damages occasioned him by its breach, but a court of equity may not by mandatory injunction thus interfere with the running of the employer's business. In the instant case the company is running an open shop, and there is no contract for the employment of any definite number of union men. The agreement, so far as it appears in the record, prescribes working conditions and certain rights of employés. Plaintiffs claim no contract with the railway company, either personally or through the brotherhoods, which binds the company to employ the plaintiffs for a single day. Under the authorities cited and upon the facts of the instant case it must be held that a court of equity is powerless to grant the relief against the Wabash here sought. The bill against the Wabash Railway Company should have been dismissed.

Counsel for the brotherhoods filed with his answer a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint and has fully discussed the interesting questions of law involved in the motion; but, as we view the facts developed by the record, it will not be necessary to decide them, as the plaintiffs under their proofs are not entitled to any relief against the brotherhoods, or either of them.

The Engineers' Brotherhood and the Firemen's Brotherhood had many things in common; in many instances their interests were identical; but in others their interests were in conflict and the rights of their members came into collision. In order to secure a harmonious working of the two brotherhoods, an agreement was entered into between them in 1913 known as the ‘Chicago Joint Agreement.’ This agreement was revised May 4, 1918. As revised, it contained the following article:

‘In case of a dispute between the two organizations which the joint committee or officers placed in charge thereof fail to adjust, the matter shall be referred to the two chief executives, with a statement of the facts upon which each side base their contentions. The two chief executives shall consider and decide the matter in controversy, and their executives fail to agree, the matter shall be submitted to arbitration and the decision of the arbitrators shall be final. When a decision has been reached, as above provided, both organizations shall unite in enforcing such decision.’

Seniority rights do not affect the wage, but they do affect very materially the character of the employment, in that the senior engineer has his choice of jobs; the next man in point of service has the second choice, and so on. Seniority rights are therefore highly prized and zealously guarded. Some of the engineers perform their service on the line, and are called ‘road’ engineers; others perform their service in the yard, and are called ‘yard fixtures' or yard engineers. In some instances engineers waive their so-called firemen's right; in others they insist by reason of their seniority on their right to take a job as fireman, and thus displace a fireman in case there are not enough engineer jobs to go around. This created some friction between the Engineers' Brotherhood and the Firemen's Brotherhood. Each...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Stephenson v. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 6 December 1937
    ... ... Corp. v. Hattiesburg Local Union No. 615, 164 So. 887; ... Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Bro. of Ry. & S. S. Clerks, ... 281 U.S. 548; Mosshamer v. Wab. Ry. Co., 221 Mich ... 407, 191 N.W. 210; Schwartz v. Cigar Makers Union, ... 219 Mich. 589, 189 N.W. 55; McMurray v. Brotherhood of ... 492; Aden v. Louisville & N. R ... Co., 276 S.W. 511; Florestano v. Northern Pacific ... Ry. Co., 269 N.W. 407; Mosshamer v. Wabash R ... Co., 191 N.W. 210; Donovan v. Travers, 188 N.E ... 705; Boucher v. Godfrey, 178 A. 655; Kessel v ... Great Northern Ry. Co., 51 ... ...
  • Beatty v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 10 December 1935
    ... ... 304; ... Roller v. Weigle, 261 F. 250; Loesch v ... Insurance Company, 218 N.Y.S. 412; Chambers v ... Davis, 22 A. L. R. 114; Mosshamer v. R. R. Co., ... (Mich.) 191 N.W. 210; Piercy v. Ry. Company, ... 248 S.W. 1042. If plaintiff had any remedy, it would be an ... action for ... ...
  • Williams v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 8 September 1947
    ...p. 1059; O.R.C. v. Shaw, 119 P.2d 549; Elgin, Joliet & Eastern R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 327 U.S. 661, 66 S.Ct. 721; Mosshamer v. Wabash, 191 N.W. 210; Long v. B. & O., 141 A. 504; Harris v. Mo. Pac., 1 946; Aulich v. Craigmyle, 59 S.W.2d 560; Ross Lodge v. B.R.T., 254 N.W. 590; Ryan ......
  • Gleason v. Thomas
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 9 June 1936
    ...Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 223 Ala. 202, 135 So. 327; Hunt v. Dunlap (Tex.Civ.App.) 248 S.W. 760; Mosshamer v. Wabash Ry. Co., 221 Mich. 407, 191 N.W. 210; McMurray v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (D. C.) 50 F.(2d) 968; Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Harris, 260 Ky. 132, 84 S.W.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT