Sjaastad v. Great Northern Railway Company

• Decision Date: 11 October 1957
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 3146.
• Citation: 155 F. Supp. 307
• Parties: E. H. SJAASTAD, Plaintiff, v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota

155 F. Supp. 307

E. H. SJAASTAD, Plaintiff, v.GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant.

Civ. No. 3146.

United States District Court D. North Dakota, Northwestern Division.

October 11, 1957.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Harris P. Kenner and C. A. Waldron(of Waldron & Kenner), Minot, N. D., for plaintiff.

H. G. Nilles(of Nilles, Oehlert & Nilles), Fargo, N. D., and Hallan Huffman, Legal Department, G. N. R. Co., St. Paul, Minn., for defendant.

REGISTER, Chief Judge.

This is an action brought by plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant, based on an alleged wrongful discharge of the plaintiff by defendant in violation of the governing collective bargaining agreement.Plaintiff, in his original complaint, demands judgment in the alternative for either (1) reinstatement in employment with defendant and for back pay from May 5, 1953, or (2) damages in the amount of $28,300 for such unlawful discharge.

The case first came before this Court on defendant's motion for summary judgment.During oral argument on such motion in open court, plaintiff expressed a desire and intent to amend his complaint limiting his action to one for money damages for alleged wrongful discharge; since such argument, plaintiff has filed his Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, to which motion is attached a copy of his proposed Amended Complaint.Such proposed Amended Complaint is in accordance with the expressed intent of counsel aforesaid.

Both motions are now before the Court—defendant's motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff's motion for leave to file said amended complaint.The former motion has been reargued in open court, and the Court has also heard oral argument as to the latter; briefs covering the same have been duly submitted by respective counsel.

Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of North Dakota; defendant is a foreign corporation, and the amount in controversy exceeds $3,000.

Plaintiff, at the times here involved, was a member of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers, an unincorporated association and a labor organization national in scope, duly certified under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act,45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., as statutory collective bargaining representative of plaintiff and of the craft or class of defendant's employees to which plaintiff belonged.For many years prior to May 5, 1953, plaintiff had been an employee of defendant in various capacities, and at the time of discharge was and had been for some time prior thereto employed by defendant as a ticket clerk and telegrapher in its passenger station at Minot, North Dakota.

The employment, working conditions and compensation of plaintiff, and of the craft or class of defendant's employees, which includes ticket clerks and telegraphers, at the times mentioned, were and are governed by a collective bargaining agreement effective September 1, 1949, designated as "Schedule No. 9 for The Order of Railroad Telegraphers", theretofore entered into between defendant and the Order of Railroad Telegraphers, which said collective bargaining agreement designated as "Schedule No. 9 for The Order of Railroad Telegraphers", inter alia, contains the following provisions:

"Rule 4.Investigation and Discipline.

"(a) Employees charged with offenses involving discipline, suspension or discharge will be promptly advised in writing the specific nature of such offense and no employee will be disciplined, suspended or discharged without a fair and impartial investigation of such charge within ten days of date of advice of such charge, but this shall not prevent immediate suspension pending investigation in aggravated cases.

"If decision results in suspension from service, it shall become effective as promptly as relief can be furnished, but in no case more than five calendar days after notice of such decision to the employee.If not effective within five calendar days, or if employee is called back to service prior to completion of suspension period, any unserved portion of the suspension period shall be cancelled.

"(b)Decision and Appeal.A decision will be rendered within fifteen days after completion of hearing.If an appeal is taken, it must be filed with the next higher official and a copy furnished the official whose decision is appealed within fifteen days after date of decision.The hearing and decision on the appeal shall be governed by the time limits of the preceding section.

"(c)Representation.At the hearing, or on the appeal, the employees may be assisted by one or more duly accredited representatives of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers.

"(d)Appeals.The right of appeal by employees or representatives, in regular order of succession and in the manner prescribed up to and inclusive of the highest official designated by the railroad to whom appeals may be made is hereby established."

On April 24, 1953, written notice charging the plaintiff with certain offenses involving discipline was served by defendant upon plaintiff; the notice informed plaintiff that a hearing would be held at four o'clock P.M. on that day to investigate the charges made.Such investigation and hearing was held by the defendant at the time and place specified in the notice; on that day, that is, April 24, 1953, plaintiff was on duty in performance of his employment with defendant until four o'clock P.M. and therefore did not appear at such meeting, or request continuance or postponement thereof.By written notice dated May 4, 1953, defendant advised plaintiff that following such investigation and hearing he was discharged from defendant's service.On May 9, 1953, plaintiff appealed from the decision of the superintendent discharging plaintiff from employment, to the general manager (the next higher official designated for hearing the appeal), which appeal was made within the required time under the agreement.Further steps were taken in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement, but were not pursued to their finality and the dispute or controversy concerning plaintiff's discharge was never referred by petition to the appropriate division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board.

Defendant, as basis for its motion for summary judgment herein, contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter.Specifically, the defendant contends that:

1.In cases involving grievances under collective bargaining agreements or involving the interpretation or application of such agreements, the National Railroad Adjustment Board has exclusive primary jurisdiction, and the United States District Courts have no jurisdiction until the services of the Board have been invoked; and,

2.Where an employee has elected to take advantage of the administrative procedures set out in the applicable collective bargaining agreement and has failed to timely pursue such remedies to finality, he is thereby debarred from maintaining a common law action for damages for breach of contract.

Both plaintiff and defendant are subject to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act.Said Act(45 U.S.C.A. § 153) provides as follows:

"First.* * * (i) The disputes between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates. of pay, rules, or working conditions, including cases pending and unadjusted on June 21, 1934, shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes; but, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board with a full statement of the facts and all supporting data bearing upon the disputes."

This Court is without jurisdiction to order the defendant to reinstate plaintiff and to award back wages because of his alleged wrongful discharge.The jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board is exclusive as to that.Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U.S. 239, 70 S.Ct. 577, 94 L.Ed. 795;Order of Railway Conductors of America v. Southern Ry. Co., 339 U.S. 255, 70 S.Ct. 585, 94 L.Ed. 811;Order of Railway Conductors of America v. Pitney, 326 U.S. 561, 66 S. Ct. 322, 90 L.Ed. 318.Therefore this Court does not have jurisdiction over a part of the subject matter of the complaint herein.

However, this Court does have jurisdiction of an action for damages for breach of a collective bargaining agreement where the plaintiff is wrongfully discharged.Moore v. Illinois Central R. Co., 312 U.S. 630, 61 S.Ct. 754, 85 L.Ed. 1089;Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., supra;Kendall v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C., 94 F.Supp. 875;Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc., v. Koppal, 345 U.S. 653, 73 S.Ct. 906, 97 L.Ed. 1325;Oswald v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 8 Cir., 200 F.2d 549.

The right of...