Plaintiff v. Petitioner
Citation | 84 W.Va. 697 |
Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
Decision Date | 07 October 1919 |
Parties | Burger et als. v. McCarthy et als. |
1. Trade Unions Regulation of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Not Against Public Policy Not Reviewable by Courts.
A new regulation adopted by a General Grievance Committee, the constituted authority of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen to make regulations for the benefit of the members of said order, and to contract with the railroad on behalf of its members respecting those regulations and thereby to modify or destroy the right of preference to man trains making runs over certain sections of the railroad, acquired by some members of the order under a former regulation basing such preference on seniority of service, having been adopted in the manner provided by the constitution and by-laws of the order, which is not in conflict with any rule of public policy, nor destructive of vested property rights, is not reviewable by the courts. (p. 698).
2. Same Right of Preference in Selection of Trainmen Subject to Modification by Subsequent Regulation by Brotherhood.
The right of preference m the selection of trainmen to man certain trains, acquired under an existing regulation by certain trainmen by virtue of their seniority, is not such a vested right as can not be denied or modified by a subsequent regulation or rule, adopted in the manner and by the authorities provided by the constitution and bydaws of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, of which complainants are members. (p. 698).
Appeal from Circuit Court, Summers County.
Suit for injunction by W. F. Burger and others against T. J. McCarthy and others. Temporary injunction dissolved on final hearing, and bill dismissed, and plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
E. G. Eagle, for appellants.
R. L. Blackwood and Geo. I. Neal, for appellees.
This suit was brought in the circuit court of Summers county by W. F. Burger, E. T. Miles and R. F. Beasley, railroad conductors residing in the City of Hinton, West Virginia, and employed by the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, against T. J. McCarthy and thirteen others, constituting the General Grievance Committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen of the said Chesapeake & Ohio Railway, for the purpose of enjoining said General Grievance Committee from putting into operation by agreement with said Railway Company a new regulation affecting the right of preference acquired by plaintiffs under an old regulation respecting the same matter which had existed for a number of years, thus taking away from them a preference in making runs of passenger trains over certain districts or divisions of the railroad, acquired by them under the former regulation based on seniority of service.
The General Grievance Committee is the legislative body for the organization known as the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and its jurisdiction extends throughout the length of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company's lines. It is made up from one member selected from the local committees of the several Brotherhood lodges, located at different places, along the lines of the railroad, and is given power and authority by the constitution and by-laws of the Brotherhood to make rules and regulations governing the members of the Brotherhood, and to contract with the Railway Company in respect thereto. A temporary injunction was awarded, but on final hearing on the 14th of October, 1918, was dissolved, and plaintiffs' bill dismissed, and from that decree plaintiffs have taken this appeal.
The new rule modifying the old one, the operation of which the bill seeks to enjoin, reads as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bell v. Western Ry. of Alabama
... ... Action ... for breach of contract by James T. Bell against the Western ... Railway of Alabama. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff ... Affirmed ... Walter ... S. Smith, of Birmingham, for appellant ... Steiner, ... Crum & Weil, of Montgomery, for ... ...
- Long v. Baltimore & C. R. Co.
-
Milam v. Settle.
...he can be heard in a court. West v. B. & O. Ry. Co., supra; Smith v. Catholic Union, 99 W. Va. 256, 128 S. E. 306; Burger v. McCarthy, 84 W. Va. 697, 100 S. E. 492; Simpson & Smith v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, supra; Robinson v. Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen, 80 W. Va. 567, 92 ......
-
Milam v. Settle
...heard in a court. West v. B. & O. Ry. Co., supra; Smith v. South Slavonic Catholic Union, 99 W.Va. 256, 128 S. E. 306; Burger v. McCarthy, 84 W.Va. 697, 100 S.E. 492; Simpson & Smith v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, supra; Robinson v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 80 W.Va. 567, 9......