Railroad Labor Board v. Robertson

• Decision Date: 12 January 1925
• Docket Number: No. 4282,4326.,4282
• Citation: 3 F.2d 488
• Parties: RAILROAD LABOR BOARD v. ROBERTSON. SAME v. McGUIRE
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

3 F.2d 488 (1925)

RAILROAD LABOR BOARD v.ROBERTSON.

SAME v.McGUIRE

Nos. 4282, 4326.

District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

November 6, 1924.

On the Merits, January 12, 1925.

Edwin A. Olson, U. S. Dist. Atty., of Chicago, Ill., and Weymouth Kirkland and Robert N. Golding, Sp. Asst. Attys.Gen., for Railroad Labor Board.

Donald R. Richberg, of Chicago, Ill. (David E. Lilienthal, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for respondents.

WILKERSON, District Judge.

These are petitions under Section 310 of the Transportation Act of 1920(41 Stat. 472 Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10071¼hhh) to require the attendance of the respondents as witnesses before the Railroad Labor Board.In case No. 4282the respondent is a citizen and inhabitant of Cleveland, in the Northern district of Ohio.In case No. 4326the respondent is a citizen and inhabitant of Chicago, in the Eastern division of the Northern district of Illinois.In other respects the averments of the petition are the same.

It is charged in substance that prior to May 14, 1924, disputes existed between certain railroad interstate carriers named in the petitions and locomotive engineers, firemen, and enginemen, who were employees of such carriers; that the employees were represented in such disputes by the Brotherhoods of Locomotive Engineers and of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen; that such disputes related to wages and salaries of said employees and rules and working conditions; that none of said disputes had been decided in conference between representatives of the railroads and other employees, or submitted to any railroad board of labor adjustment provided for by section 302 of the Transportation Act(Comp St.Ann. Supp. 1923, § 10071¼f); that on May 14, 1924, the Railroad Labor Board assumed jurisdiction of said disputes and consolidated the same for hearing as docket No. 4055, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway et al. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen; that the order assuming jurisdiction by the board was as follows:

"The board is advised that on or about January 1, 1924, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen presented requests for increase in rates of pay to the carriers following: Here being set forth the names of the carriers set forth in the petitions.Concurrent therewith the above Western railroads presented requests to the representatives of the employees for relief from alleged restrictive and burdensome rules governing working conditions.

"Subsequent thereto conferences were arranged between the duly authorized representatives of the interested parties.These conferences continued until May 12, 1924, at which time the conferences terminated without agreement having been reached.In view of these circumstances, the board has reason to believe that a dispute exists which is likely to substantially interrupt commerce.The board therefore decides to exercise its authority as set forth in the Transportation Act of 1920, and hereby orders the parties directly involved to attend a hearing which is set for June 3, 1924, at 10 o'clock a. m., daylight saving time, Transportation Building, Chicago, unless in the meantime a setlement is reached.Pending hearing and decision thereon both parties are directed to maintain status quo."

The petitions further allege that the consolidated disputes were heard from time to time by the board and evidence taken, a copy of which proceedings is attached to the petition and contains more than 2,000 typewritten pages; that subpœnas were duly served upon 102 witnesses, who were all officers or agents of the brotherhoods or employees of one of the carriers, including the respondents, demanding their presence before the board for the purpose of giving evidence in said consolidated disputes; that said witnesses, including respondents, appeared specially by attorney and refused to give evidence on divers grounds, one of which was that the petitioner had no jurisdiction to hear the disputes; that the board overruled the objection and made an order in part as follows:

"In this particular case, the board's opinion that a substantial interruption of traffic was likely to result from the controversy was based upon the amplest grounds, a portion of which will be briefly mentioned.

"(1) The questions in dispute affect the wages and working conditions of the engineers and firemen on 43 of the principal railroads of the West, Southwest, and Northwest, comprising an overwhelming per cent. of the mileage in that territory.

"(2) The negotiation of these questions was by mutual agreement taken up between the carriers represented by the Conference Committee of Managers, Western Railways, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen.After some weeks of unsuccessful efforts to reach an agreement, the conference was terminated without agreement and the representatives adjourned.Thereupon the manager's committee notified the board of the failure to settle the disputes by agreement.

"(3) Knowing that the same managers' committee had recently negotiated a settlement of analogous disputes concerning wages with the Order of Railway Conductors and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, the board had reason to believe that their negotiations with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen had been in good faith and with a genuine desire to adjust differences, and that there must necessarily exist matters of sharp dispute.

"(4) The board was aware that the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, when a similar dispute about wages and working conditions on the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad had resulted in disagreement, had recently taken a strike vote.Since then these two organizations have taken a strike vote on the Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Railroad to force a settlement of a similar dispute affecting wages and rules.The board is therefore justified in the conclusion that it is the policy of these two organizations to promptly resort to a strike upon the failure to reach an agreement relative to these wage and rules controversies.Moreover, the board was also mindful of the fact that these same two organizations ordered a strike a few months ago on the Virginian Railway on account of unsettled disputes, without first bringing said disputes to the board.After the strike in this instance was effective, the organizations did, however, appear before the board and present their contentions in connection with the matters in dispute.These occurrences are reasonably construed to signify the policy of these organizations in regard to the interruption of traffic by strikes.

"(5) The board is necessarily cognizant of the fact that said two organizations comprise a very great percentage of those two classes of employees essential to the operation of trains, and that their possession of large strike funds would increase their ability to make an interruption of traffic substantial within the meaning of the statute.

"(6) The organizations objected to the board's assumption of jurisdiction in this case on the ground that negotiations were being resumed with the managements of the individual railroads.The board therefore postponed the hearing to give ample opportunity for further negotiations of any character.The carriers, however, took the position that the managers' committee represented each individual road, and would negotiate with the local chairman of the organizations, if desired, and that they did not see fit to abandon the method of negotiation already adopted by agreement.

"(7) The board cannot overlook the fact that the carriers affected by this situation serve the West and Northwest, whose people are just now emerging from a severe agricultural depression, and who would suffer disastrous results from a railroad strike.Furthermore, it must be remembered that no injustice can be done either to the carriers or the employees by a public hearing of the facts surrounding these disputes before a tribunal composed of representatives of the carriers, the employees, and the public.Such a hearing will in all probability result in an adjustment of the controversy.At any rate, it will enlighten the public as to the issues involved, and this is one of the main purposes that was contemplated by Congress when the Transportation Act was passed.On the other hand, the finding of the board will not be legally obligatory upon either party.

"In view of all those considerations, the board cannot accept the suggestion that its action was premature, and that either a carrier or the employees have the right to split hairs with the board as to the exact minute when it should exercise its statutory discretion in the assumption of jurisdiction of a dispute in the interest of the public welfare and for the well-being of the parties themselves."

That afterwards other subpœnas were served upon respondents, returnable on September 11, 1924, at which time respondents, appearing specially by attorney, refused to attend and give evidence; that in pursuance of its duty it is incumbent upon the board, in order to perform its functions, to procure evidence from the respondents, and that such evidence is material to the matters involved in said dispute.

The petitions pray for orders in accordance with section 310 of the Transportation Act, requiring the respondents to comply with the subpœnas and give evidence touching the matters in question.

In case No. 4282, respondent appears specially and moves to quash the summons on the ground that, as he is an inhabitant of the Northern district of Ohio, this suit may not be maintained against him here.

In case No. 4326, respondent moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that the subpœna and these proceedings contravene the third article of the...