Order of Railway Conductors v. National Mediation Board, 8571.

• Decision Date: 27 March 1944
• Docket Number: No. 8571.,8571.
• Citation: 79 US App. DC 1,141 F.2d 366
• Parties: ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS OF AMERICA, etc., et al. v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

79 US App. DC 1, 141 F.2d 366 (1944)

ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS OF AMERICA, etc., et al. v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD et al.

No. 8571.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.

Argued February 17, 1944.

Decided March 27, 1944.

Messrs. William C. Clineburg, of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Nebraska, of Washington, D. C., and V. C. Shuttleworth, of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Iowa, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, both pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Rufus G. Poole, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. Guy W. Knight, of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, of Philadelphia, Pa., pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. R. Aubrey Bogley, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

Mr. Bernard M. Savage, of Baltimore, Md., for appellee Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. Mr. Alfred L. Bennett, of Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.

Mr. Robert L. Pierce, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Mr. Wendell Berge, Assistant Attorney General, was on the brief, for appellees National Mediation Board and its individual members.

Before GRONER, Chief Justice and MILLER, Associate Justice.

PER CURIAM.

This case is here on appeal and arises out of a jurisdictional dispute between the Order of Railway Conductors and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.

Since 1927 there had been in effect certain jointly negotiated contracts affecting the relationship of the Pennsylvania Railroad and the two unions. In 1941 the Railroad served notice of its desire to change specific provisions of the contracts, and negotiations were begun to that end. In the middle of 1942 the negotiations were terminated by the Conductors. Thereafter negotiations between the Railroad and Trainmen resulted in a contract affecting what are called assistant conductors and also the circumstances under which the conductors' "extra board" would be maintained. In the late summer of 1942 conferences were resumed between the Railroad and Conductors. The Railroad refused to reopen the questions dealt with in its recently made contract with Trainmen, and Conductors again withdrew. Shortly after this Trainmen invoked the Mediation Board's services to hold an election under § 2, Ninth of the Act,^* and to certify that organization as the authorized representative of the road conductors on the Pennsylvania. Conductors protested, claiming that the Railroad, with the purpose of having Trainmen substituted for it as bargaining representative, had been guilty of bad faith and coercion, had encouraged Trainmen and its supporters by giving them undue consideration in the settlement of certain back wage claims of its members, and had spread among the employees, including the road conductors, rumors tending to show that Trainmen was an effective organization, alert to the interests of its members, and that Conductors was not, all with the purpose of inducing the conductors to cast their votes at the election in favor of Trainmen as their bargaining representative. Conductors accordingly requested a postponement of the election until an investigation of the charges had been made by the Board. The Board refused the request for postponement, as well as the request that it investigate the charges and insisted it had no jurisdiction therein, except as to coercion, threatened or practised, while an election is in progress. Conductors then began this suit in the District Court against the Railroad and Trainmen, and while it was pending the...