Ry. Mail Ass'n v. Corsi

Decision Date19 July 1944
PartiesRAILWAY MAIL ASS'N v. CORSI, Industrial Com'r, et al.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Action by the Railway Mail Association against Edward S. Corsi, as Industrial Commissioner of the State of New York, and Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney General, substituted as parties defendant for their predecessors in office, Frieda S. Miller and John J. Bennett, Jr., respectively, for a declaratory judgment that plaintiff is not a labor organization within the Civil Rights Law, ss 41, 43, 45, and the Labor Law, and that such laws, if applicable to plaintiff, are unconstitutional, and to enjoin the commissioner from taking any action against plaintiff under such laws. From a judgment entered on an order of the Appellate Division, 267 App.Div. 470, 47 N.Y.S.2d 404, reversing on the law a judgment of the Supreme Court for plaintiff on an order at Special Term, Murray, J., 180 Misc. 868, 44 N.U.S.2d 601, declaring plaintiff not a labor organization within Civil Rights Law, s 43, restraining defendants from enforcing such statute against plaintiff, and directing dismissal of the complaint, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed. Daniel J. Dugan and Daniel J. Dugan, Jr., both of Albany, for appellant.

Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Atty. Gen. (Wendell P. Brown, Orrin G. Judd and Henry S. Manley, all of Albany, of counsel), for respondents.

LEHMAN, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Hampshire. It conducts its affairs through Division and Branch Associations. Thirteen Branch Associations are located in different parts of the State of New York. Membership in the Association is confined by the terms of its constitution to ‘any regular male Railway Postal Clerk or male substitute Railway Postal Clerk of the United States Railway Mail Service, who is of the Caucasian race or a native American Indian.’ Section 43 of the Civil Rights Law (added by L. 1940, ch. 9) provides in part that ‘no labor organization shall hereafter, directly or indirectly * * * deny a person or persons membership in its organization by reason of his race, color or creed * * *.’ Violation of the statute is a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. The plaintiff has brought an action for a declaratory judgment ‘that sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Civil Rights Law of the State of New York and the provisions of the Labor Law, * * * do not apply to the plaintiff * * * and that the Railway Mail Association is not a labor organization within the meaning or contemplation of such laws.’ The plaintiff also asks the court to declare ‘that if sought to be applied to the plaintiff herein such laws are in contravention to the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, Subdivision 7, and of Articles Fifth and Fourteenth of the amendments to said Constitution and to the provisions of Section 6 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of New York.’ As ‘consequential relief’ the plaintiff asks that ‘the Industrial Commissioner of the State of New York be enjoined from taking any action or procedure against the plaintiff or its Division or Branch Associations within the State of New York, or the officers or members thereof’.

The defendants have admitted all the allegations contained in the complaint except the allegation that the plaintiff is not a ‘labor organization’ within the meaning of the statute. The issues raised by the pleadings were by stipulation of the parties submitted to the court at Special Term ‘as though upon a motion by the plaintiff for summary judgment as prayed in the complaint, and upon a cross-motion by the defendants that the complaint be dismissed.’ No testimony was offered at the hearing and no affidavits were submitted but the parties stipulated that specified documents, books and pamphlets may be considered as exhibits. At Special Term the plaintiff prevailed and judgment in its favor was granted declaring that plaintiff is not a labor organization within the meaning or contemplation of Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the Civil Rights Law of the State of New York or within the meaning and contemplation of Article 20 of the Labor Law, Consol.Laws, c. 31, of said State’ and enjoining the Industrial Commissioner ‘from taking any action or procedure to apply or enforce’ these statutes. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed on the law the judgment in favor of the plaintiff and granted judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing the complaint. The dismissal of the complaint is based upon the conclusion of the court that the provisions of section 43 of the Civil Rights Law apply to the plaintiff Association and may be enforced against it by the Industrial Commissioner. If we agree with that conclusion we need not consider whether, if section 43 of the Civil Rights Law did not apply to it, the plaintiff could obtain in an action for a declaratory judgment the relief it demands.

Section 43 of the Civil Rights Law, which forbids a ‘labor organization’ to deny membership to a person by reason of his race, color or creed, provides its own definition of the term ‘labor organization’. As used in that section, the term ‘labor organization’ means any organization ‘which exists and is constituted for the purpose, in whole or in part, of collective bargaining, or of dealing with employers concerning grievances, terms or conditions of employment, or of other mutual aid or protection.’ The purpose for which the plaintiff is constituted, as formulated in its charter, is ‘to conduct the business of a fraternal beneficiary association for the sole benefit of its members and beneficiaries and not for profit; to promote closer social relationship among Railway Postal Clerks; to better enable them to perfect any movement that may be be for their benefit as a class or for the benefit of the Railway Mail Service; to provide relief for its members and their beneficiaries and make provisions for the payment of benefits to them, in case of death, sickness, temporary or permanent physical disability, either as a result of disease, accident or old age.’ (Italics through this opinion are supplied.)

The purpose of ‘collective bargaining’ is not included in the objects for which the plaintiff exists and is constituted. Membership in the plaintiff is confined to mail clerks who are civil service employees and the plaintiff and the defendants agree that the terms and conditions of employment of civil service employees of the Post Office and of other departments or agencies of the Federal, State or City government must be fixed by governmental authority and not by collective bargainig. The purpose of ‘mutual aid or protection’ and, in proper case, of discussing grievances with their employer and presenting demands or suggestions of their members as a class, is included by plain implication in the purposes set forth in the charter. Indeed, among the duties of the Industrial Secretary of the organization, prescribed in its constitution, is the duty to ‘assist in the presentation of grievances pertaining to service conditions and endeavor to secure adjustment of such through administrative action.’ The plaintiff joined the American Federation of Labor, which purports to be a federation of labor unions. It is denominated a labor union in the Bulletin of the Department of Labor of the United States. It is described as a trade union or labor organization in publications and reports concerning phases of the labor movement by students and organizations of recognized authority, including a recent publication of the Twentieth Century Fund. In its own publications the plaintiff Association claims the credit for bringing ‘to every railway postal clerk many material benefits' and for ‘many additional millions of dollars brought to the pockets of railway postal clerks each year by the efforts of the Association,’ and it points out that ‘reforms always come as the result of demands from the worker. If better conditions are worth securing, they must come as the result of organized effort.’ An association constituted for the purpose of ‘organized effort’ and the presentation of concerted demands of workers as a class in order to secure material benefit and reforms in conditions of employment is a ‘labor organization’ both in common parlance and as defined in section 43 of the Civil Rights Law.

That is true though the association may exist and be constituted ‘in part’ for other purposes. In this case the plaintiff Assocition...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 28, 1970
    ...Guild, 100 N.H. 507, 131 A.2d 59; Delaware River & Bay Auth. v. International Org. etc., 45 N.J. 138, 211 A.2d 789; Railway Mail Ass'n v. Corsi, 293 N.Y. 315, 56 N.E.2d 721 (affirmed 65 S.Ct. 1483); City of New York v. De Lury, 23 N.Y.2d 175, 182, 295 N.Y.S.2d 901, 906, 243 N.E.2d 128; City......
  • Hernandez v. State
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 23, 2019
    ...are presumed to have also been aware that SERA's definitions were "special definitions of limited application" (Railway Mail Assn. v. Corsi,293 N.Y. 315, 321, 56 N.E.2d 721 [1944], affd326 U.S. 88, 65 S.Ct. 1483, 89 L.Ed. 2072 [1945] ), expressly intended to apply only "when used in th[at] ......
  • Weinstein v. New York City Transit Authority
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • February 9, 1966
    ... ... 252-253, 51 N.W.2d at p. 235) ...         At Special Term, in Railway Mail Association v. Murphy, it was stated (180 Misc. 868, 875, 44 N.Y.S.2d 601, 607 [Sup.Ct., Albany , 1943], rev'd on other grounds, sub. nom. Railway Mail Association v. Corsi, 267 App.Div. 470, 47 N.Y.S.2d 404 [3rd Dept., 1944], 293 N.Y. 315, 56 N.E.2d 721 [1944], 326 U.S ... ...
  • Gaynor v. Rockefeller
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 21, 1964
    ...Establishing the contention as a factual truth, in a proper proceeding, would permit legal redress (cf. Railway Mail Association v. Corsi, 293 N.Y. 315, 56 N.E.2d 721, aff'd 326 U.S. 88, 65 S.Ct. 1483, 89 L.Ed. Appellant unions contend the National Labor Relations Board has exclusive jurisd......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT