Order of Railway Conductors of America v. Pennsylvania Co
| Decision Date | 11 December 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 200,200 |
| Citation | 323 U.S. 166,89 L.Ed. 154,65 S.Ct. 222 |
| Parties | ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS OF AMERICA et al. v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Rufus G. Poole, of Washington, D.C., for petitioners.
Mr. John B. Prizer, of Philadelphia, Pa., for respondent, Pennsylvania R. Co.
Mr. Bernard M. Savage, of Baltimore, Md., for respondent Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
This is a suit for a declaratory judgment and for an injunction brought by the Order of Railway Conductors of America, an unincorporated association of railway employes, against the National Mediation Board, two of its members, the Pennsylvania Railroad, and a subsidiary railroad company, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, an unincorporated association of railway employes. For the sake of brevity, the plaintiffs will be called 'plaintiff'; the National Mediation Board and its members 'board'; the two railroads 'railroad', and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen 'trainmen'.
The complaint, after stating the capacity of the parties, makes the following allegations, which as will appear, are for purposes of decision, to be taken as true. The plaintiff is, and for years has been, the accredited representative and bargaining agent for the craft of road conductors of the railroad, and the trainmen the representative and agent of road brakemen, yard conductors, yard brakemen, baggagemen and switchtenders. The two associations have jointly negotiated contracts with the railroad, and such a contract was jointly negotiated effective April 1, 1927, and remains in force with respect to road conductors, except as modified concerning rates of pay. April 18, 1941, the railroad notified the two unions of its desire to alter the contract and, pursuant to the notice, the accredited representatives of the parties met in conference to adjust classifications of conductors, rates of pay for them, and the control of the so-called 'extraboard' for conductors. Due to disagreements between the two unions and the concurrence by the railroad in the attitude of the trainmen, representatives of the conductors withdrew from the joint negotiation and served notice of withdrawal on the railroad. Two weeks thereafter the railroad and the trainmen signed a new agreement covering the matters under consideration. Certain provisions agreed upon between the railroad and the trainmen were in violation of sections of the Railway Labor Act and, therefore, void, and the prior agreement between the conductors and the railroad remained in force, but, nevertheless, the railroad, since execution of the new agreement with the trainmen, has refused to bargain with the plaintiff.
The railroad and the trainmen conspired and confederated in an unlawful programme designed to embarrass, discredit, and weaken the plaintiff and strengthen the trainmen and thus to influence, coerce, and interfere with the craft of road conductors in their choice of a bargaining representative, and the railroad and trainmen were guilty of acts intended, and effective, to that end. September 23, 1942, the trainmen filed with the board a request to be certified as the bargaining representative of the craft of road conductors.
The plaintiff protested to the board against the holding of an election, charging that the railroad was interfering with, influencing, and coercing conductors by unlawfully bargaining with the trainmen with respect to road conductors' working conditions, in breach of the existing contract between the plaintiff and the railroad. The board illegally and wrongfully ruled that it had no jurisdiction to consider the charges, ordered an election to determine the bargaining representative for road conductors, held such election, and issued a certification based thereon that trainmen was the authorized representative of the road conductors, which election and certification are illegal, null and void, inter alia, because the board refused to perform its duties by investigating the alleged unfair labor practices.
Based on the foregoing allegations, the relief demanded was (1) that the election and certification be annulled, vacated, and set aside; (2)(a) that the board and its mem- bers be restrained from holding any election for a bargaining representative of road conductors until it shall have considered the unfair labor practices and found that they do not amount to interference, influence or coercion, and that (b), in the alternative, the court declare the practices complained of constitute unlawful interference or coercion of the craft of road conductors, and restrain the board from holding an election until the board determines, after investigation and hearing, that such interference, influence or coercion has ceased; (3)(4) that it be declared that certain paragraphs of the agreement negotiated by the railroad and the trainmen were not negotiated with the accredited representative of the road conductors and were illegal infringements upon the exclusive right of the plaintiff, as accredited bargaining agent, to represent the conductors; (5) that it be declared that the plaintiff, as such representative, has the exclusive right to negotiate in collective bargaining for the conductors; (6) that the railroad be permanently enjoined from bargaining or making or maintaining agreements with trainmen, or any other union except the plaintiff on behalf of road conductors so long as the plaintiff is the accredited representative of that class; (7) that the railroad be directed to negotiate and bargain with the plaintiff, as representative of the road conductors, so long as the plaintiff remains such representative; (8) that the railroad be enjoined from directly or indirectly coercing, influencing, or interfering with the craft of road conductors and their choice of a representative under the Railway Labor Act; (9) further relief.
After answers by the defendants the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the pleadings and an affidavit which added nothing to the matters appearing in the pleadings. The District Court, though of opinion that there was no genuine issue, as to any material fact, presented under the motion for judgment, nevertheless de- nied the motion and also dismissed the complaint, because it held that the facts alleged and admitted failed to establish a cause of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell
...S.Ct. 1070, 1074, 87 L.Ed. 1407 or to circumvent the necessity of exhausting administrative remedies. Order of Ry. Conductors v. Penn. R. Co., 323 U.S. 166, 65 S.Ct. 222, 89 L.Ed. 154; Macauley v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 327 U.S. 540, 66 S.Ct. 712. But it fills a need and serves a high functio......
-
International Brotherhood v. United Parcel
...See Int'l Ass'n of Machinists v. Street, 367 U.S. 740, 759, 81 S.Ct. 1784, 6 L.Ed.2d 1141 (1961); Order of R.R. Conductors v. Pa. R.R. Co., 323 U.S. 166, 172, 65 S.Ct. 222, 89 L.Ed. 154 (1944) (recognizing that § 2, Third protected the employees' choice of a "bargaining representative"); Mo......
-
Bituminous Coal Operators' Ass'n, Inc. v. International Union, United Mine Workers of America
...See Macauley v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 327 U.S. 540, 66 S.Ct. 712, 90 L.Ed. 839 (1946); Order of Railway Conductors v. Pennsylvania R.R., 323 U.S. 166, 65 S.Ct. 222, 89 L.Ed. 154 (1944).12 See Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688 (1971).13 E. g., Allied Oil Workers Un......
-
ASSOCIATED GEN. CON. OF A., INC., OKL., ETC. v. Laborers Int. U.
...Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Beilman Produce Co., Inc., 75 F.Supp. 334 (M.D.Pa.1948). See also Order of Ry. Conductors of America v. Penn. R. Co., 323 U.S. 166, 65 S.Ct. 222, 89 L.Ed. 154 (1944); Transport Wkrs. U. of Amer. v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 413 F.2d 746 (10th Cir. 1969); Kansas Gas & Elec......