Order of Ry Conductors of America v. Southern Ry Co 8212 1950
| Decision Date | 10 April 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 438,438 |
| Parties | ORDER OF RY. CONDUCTORS OF AMERICA v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. Argued Feb. 8—9, 1950 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. V. C. Shuttleworth, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for petitioner.
Mr. W. Scott Mcagill, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
This case raises the same statutory question as Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W.R. Co., 339 U.S. 239, 70 S.Ct. 577. The petitioner, Order of Railway Conductors, is the only accredited bargaining representative of conductors employed by the re- spondent Southern Railway. A dispute arose between certain conductors and the railroad concerning the railroad's obligation under the collective-bargaining agreement to give conductors extra pay for certain services. The claims of the conductors were referred to the union, which sought by negotiation to persuade the railroad to pay. The railroad refused, and thereafter prayed a South Carolina state court for a declaratory judgment interpreting the agreement as not requiring the claimed payments. The trial court first refused to exercise jurisdiction. Citing Order of Conductors v. Pitney, 326 U.S. 561, 66 S.Ct. 322, 90 L.Ed. 318, it held that state courts, like federal courts, should leave settlement of such disputes to the National Railroad Adjustment Board. The state Supreme Court reversed, holding that the state court did have power to interpret the bargaining agreement and adjudicate the dispute. 210 S.C. 121, 41 S.E.2d 774. After a lengthy trial the lower court held that the collective agreement did not require the compensation sought by the conductors and entered the declaratory judgment requested. The Supreme Court affirmed. 215 S.C. 280, 54 S.E.2d 816.
For reasons set out in the Slocum case, 339 U.S. 239, 70 S.Ct. 577, we hold that the South Carolina state court was without power to interpret the terms of this agreement and adjudicate the dispute. We discuss this case separately because it sharply points up the conflicts that could arise from state court intervention in railroad-union disputes. After the railroad had sued in the state court, the union filed a petition for hearing and award before the Adjustment Board. The state court nevertheless proceeded to adjudicate the dispute. Sustaining the state court's action would invite races of diligence whenever a carrier or union preferred one forum to the other. And if a carrier or a union could choose a court instead of the Board, the other ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Day
......795. On the same day, we also decided Order of . . Page 551 . Railway Conductors of ica v. Southern Ry. Co., 339 U.S. 255, 70 S.Ct. 585, 94 L.Ed. ... case in Order of Railway Conductors of America the claimant has retired from railroad service. ... . In 1950 the statutory existence of the Office of Housing ......
-
Rumbaugh v. Winifrede Railroad Company
...of Railroad Trainmen v. Howard, 343 U.S. 768, 774, 72 S.Ct. 1022, 96 L.Ed. 1283 (1952); Order of Railway Conductors v. Southern Railway, 339 U.S. 255, 70 S.Ct. 585, 94 L.Ed. 811 (1950); see Pennsylvania R. R. v. Day, 360 U.S. 548, 550, 79 S.Ct. 1322, 3 L.Ed.2d 1422 (1959); Haley v. Childers......
-
Cook v. Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters
...The possibility of conflicts between court and administrative determinations is pointed out in Order of Ry. Conductors of America v. Southern Ry. Co., 339 U.S. 255, 70 S.Ct. 585, 94 L.Ed. 811. And it has been held repeatedly that the fact that a collective bargaining agreement may have an u......
-
UNITED IND. WKRS. OF SEA. IU v. Board of Tr. of Galveston Wh.
...a state nor a federal court has jurisdiction to determine matters of contract interpretation. Order of Ry. Conductors v. Southern Ry., 1950, 339 U.S. 255, 70 S.Ct. 585, 94 L.Ed. 811; Slocum v. Delaware, Lackawanna & W. R. R., 1950, 339 U.S. 239, 70 S.Ct. 577, 94 L.Ed. 795; Order of Ry. Cond......