Ryan v. N.Y. Cent. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 166.,166. |
| Citation | 267 Mich. 202,255 N.W. 365 |
| Parties | RYAN v. NEW YORK CENT. R. CO. et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; John Simpson, Judge.
Suit by William Edward Ryan against the New York Central Railroad Company and others. From an adverse decree, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Frank L. Blackman, of Jackson, for appellant.
Bisbee, McKone, Wilson, King & Kendall, of Jackson (J. J. Danhof, Jr., of Detroit, of counsel), for appellees New York Cent. R. Co. and Michigan Cent. R. Co.
Monaghan, Crowley, Reilley & Kellogg, of Detroit, for appellees Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Order of Railway Conductors, and Park Lodge No. 535, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.
The purpose of the organization known as the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is stated in the ‘Preamble’ to the constitution of its Grand Lodge, and reads as follows:
‘To unite the Railroad Trainmen; to promote their general welfare and advance their interests, social, moral, and intellectual; to protect their families by the exercise of benevolence, very needful in a calling so hazardous as ours, this fraternity has been organized.
‘Persuaded that it is for the interests both of our members and their employers that a good understanding should at all times exist between the two, it will be the constant endeavor of this organization to establish mutual confidence, and create and maintain harmonious relations.
‘Such are the aims and purposes of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.’
To that end its officials endeavor to secure from the railroad companies the adoption of such rules and usages in respect to the wages and working conditions of its members as are fair and reasonable and to their mutual advantage, thus avoiding strikes and other unpleasantness. Agreements between them are at times in the form of contracts. Seniority in service is a right highly prized by, and of value to, the employees. Negotiations therefor are conducted by the officers of the brotherhood under provisions in its constitution and laws. The individual members do not participate therein, but, when contracts are made or rules adopted affecting their rights, they may seek review of them by application to their grievance committees and appeal therefrom to other officials called the ‘courts' of the order. The railroad companies apparently have but little personal interest in such matters.
The main line of the Michigan Central Railroad, now a part of the New York Central Railroad, extends from the city of Detroit to the city of Chicago. It is divided into three divisions; the eastern extending from Detroit to JacksonThe middle from Jackson to Niles, and the western from Niles to Chicago. Each division has a superintendent, and there is through passenger service extending over the three divisions.
In October, 1909, the Michigan Central Railroad placed in effect what is known as schedule rule No. 25, reading as follows:
Effective as of August 1, 1914, an agreement was entered into between the brotherhood and the railroad company creating interchangeable rights as between passenger and freight trainmen. Under it freight brakemen might earn seniority rights if employed in the passenger service and passenger brakemen if employed in the freight service. A controversy arose over the application of this provision, and certain proceedings were had in the Grand Lodge Convention of the Brotherhood, resulting in its change by the railroad, effective May 1, 1917, to read as follows: ‘Baggagemen and brakeman on Western and Middle Divisions shall be given rights on all through passenger runs between Detroit and Chicago as baggagemen and brakemen respectively.’
By it the word ‘crews' in the 1909 rule was construed to refer to conductors only, and under it the brotherhood and the railroad denied seniority and passenger rights to brakemen earned prior thereto. This construction was recognized and adhered to until about the year 1931, when James Wiltsie, the chairman of the Jackson Lodge of the brotherhood, was instructed by it to submit the matter to the grievance committee of the order, with the request that the date therein be changed so that it would be effective as of August 1, 1914, instead of May 1, 1917.
After a hearing, at which the parties interested were present or represented, the grievance committee complied with the request. An appeal therefrom was taken to the board of directors of the brotherhood and a hearing had after due notice to, and appearance by, the parties interested, and the action of the grievance committee was set aside by the board and a finding made that seniority rights with respect to through trains, in so far as brakemen and baggagemen were concerned, should be determined as of May 1, 1917. An appeal was taken from this decision to the board of appeals, the final court of the order for the determination of such matters. The following entry appears in its minutes:
The plaintiff, a freight brakeman, who had been in the employ of the Michigan Central Company and its successor, the New York Central Railroad Company, since January 29, 1912, filed the bill of complaint herein. The proceedings as outlined above were set forth therein at some length. In his prayer for relief he asked that the court construe the contracts referred to and determine his rights, and those of other parties interested, thereunder, that the railroad and the brotherhood be compelled to adopt the construction which will be made by the court, and that the railroad be enjoined from running trains over the middle and western divisions of its road manned by men who have no seniority rights to such runs. His right to relief is based upon the denial of seniority rights between 1914 and 1917, which he claims was a taking of his property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Samuelson v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen
... ... reasonable rules and regulations of the union. Ryan v ... New York Cent. R. Co., (Mich.) 255 N.W. 365. (B. of R ... T. rules involved.) ... ...
-
Williams v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
... ... Kurn, 349 Mo. 1202, 164 S.W.2d ... 310; Yazoo & M.V.R. Co. v. Webb, 64 F.2d 902; ... Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Moore, 112 F.2d 959; Hudson ... v. Cin. & L.C. Ry. Co., 152 Ky. 711, 154 S.W. 47. (4) ... 946; Aulich v. Craigmyle, 59 S.W.2d 560; Ross ... Lodge v. B.R.T., 254 N.W. 590; Ryan v. N.Y.C., ... 255 N.W. 365; Donovan v. Travers, 188 N.E. 705; ... Casey v. B. of L.F. & E., 266 ... ...
-
Holman v. Industrial Stamping & Mfg. Co.
...of Railway & Steamship Clerk, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees, 283 Mich. 201, 277 N.W. 885; Ryan v. New York Central R. Co., 267 Mich. 202, 255 N.W. 365; cf. Zdero v. Briggs Mfg. Co., 338 Mich. 549, 61 N.W.2d 615; and Elder v. New York Central R. Co., 6 Cir., 1945, 152 F.2d In......
-
Lowe v. Hotel & Restaurant Emp. Union, Local 705
...Harris v. Detroit Typographical Union, 144 Mich. 422, 108 N.W. 362 (1906). There are other Michigan decisions, Ryan v. New York Central R. Co., 267 Mich. 202, 255 N.W. 365 (1934), and Hartley v. Brotherhood of Railway Employees, 283 Mich. 201, 277 N.W. 885 (1938), in which our court has gon......