Primakow v. Railway Express Agency, Civil Action No. 563.
| Decision Date | 07 August 1941 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 563. |
| Citation | 57 F. Supp. 933 |
| Parties | PRIMAKOW v. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, Inc., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Harry A. Kovenock, of Milwaukee, Wis. for plaintiff.
Miller, Mack & Fairchild, of Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant Railway Express Agency.
Shea & Hoyt, of Milwaukee, Wis., and Leo J. Hassenauer, of Chicago, Ill., for defendant Ella C. Gregg.
This is a motion to remand. Plaintiff is an employee of the defendant Railway Express Agency (hereinafter called "Company"). She claims that she is entitled to a seniority status superior to that of the defendant Ella C. Gregg, who is also an employee of the Company and, like the plaintiff, is employed as a stenographer in the Superintendent's office.
The Company and its employees entered into a contract governing working conditions which became effective on August 1, 1937, as far as employees of the Superintendent's office were concerned. This action was commenced in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County. Before this action was started plaintiff had from time to time asserted her alleged rights as to seniority to the officials of the Company and finally obtained a ruling in her favor.
Formal proceedings were taken by the Company officials and by the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, etc. (hereinafter called "Brotherhood") to determine the question of seniority rights. A decision by a referee was adverse to the claims of the plaintiff, and an award was made pursuant thereto by Express Board of Adjustment No. 1. Said proceedings were pursuant to the provisions of an agreement between the Company and the Brotherhood, effective August 7, 1934, which agreement was entered into pursuant to the "Railway Labor Act of 1934," 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.
Plaintiff contends that she was not a party to the proceedings; that she had no notice thereof; and that the award is not binding on her. In her complaint, plaintiff asks for a judicial determination of the superiority of her seniority rights as against the defendant, Mrs. Gregg; for an injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing, as against plaintiff, any decision or award in a dispute between the two defendants heretofore adjusted under the Railway Labor Act; and for damages of $487.92 from the Company for alleged past violations of the plaintiff's seniority rights.
Plaintiff's motion to remand is based upon the contention that the instant case is not within the jurisdiction of this court. Admittedly there is no diversity of citizenship. The amount in dispute is less than $3000. However, defendants contend that this action arises under a law regulating commerce.
If this action might have been brought originally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shipley v. Pittsburgh & LER Co.
...federal and not under a state law regulating commerce. Young & Jones v. Hiawatha Gin & Mfg. Co., D.C., 17 F.2d 193; Primakow v. Railway Express Agency, D.C., 57 F.Supp. 933; Mulford et al. v. Smith et al., 307 U.S. 38, 59 S.Ct. 648, 83 L.Ed. "The Railway Labor Act is the means which Congres......
-
Strawser v. Reading Co.
...a diversity of citizenship and the jurisdictional amount * * *." Although there are some decisions to the contrary, Primakow v. Railway Express Agency, D.C., 57 F.Supp. 933; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Moore, 5 Cir., 112 F.2d 959, reversed on other grounds, 312 U.S. 630, 61 S.Ct. 754, 85 L.Ed.......
-
Shipley v. Pittsburgh & LER Co.
...a federal and not under a state law regulating commerce. Young & Jones v. Hiawatha Gin & Mfg. Co., D.C. 17 F.2d 193; Primakow v. Railway Express Agency, D.C., 57 F.Supp. 933; Mulford et al. v. Smith et al., 307 U.S. 38, 59 S.Ct. 648, 83 L.Ed. The Railway Labor Act is the means which Congres......
-
Switchmen's Union v. Southern Pacific Company
...1944, 323 U.S. 210, 65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed. 187, or under the contract between the employer and the union, as in Primakow v. Railway Exp. Agency, D.C.E.D.Wis.1941, 57 F.Supp. 933. Nevertheless, the carrier's complaint seeks to establish jurisdiction because an entire stranger to these transa......