Switchmen's Union of N. America v. National M. Board

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
• Writing for the Court: GRONER, Justice, and VINSON and RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices
• Citation: Switchmen's Union of N. America v. National M. Board, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 264, 135 F.2d 785 (D.C. Cir. 1943)
• Decision Date: 15 February 1943
• Docket Number: No. 8346.,8346.
• Parties: SWITCHMEN'S UNION OF NORTH AMERICA et al. v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD et al.

135 F.2d 785 (1943)

SWITCHMEN'S UNION OF NORTH AMERICA et al. v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD et al.

No. 8346.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Decided February 15, 1943.

Writ of Certiorari Granted May 24, 1943.

Mr. Donald R. Richberg, of Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Rufus G. Poole, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. Robert L. Stern, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Assistant Attorney General, Mr. T. W. Arnold, and Mr. John H. D. Wigger, Special Attorney, Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee National Mediation Board.

Mr. Bernard M. Savage, of Baltimore, Md., with whom Mr. Alfred L. Bennett, of Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.

Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and VINSON and RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices.

Writ of Certiorari Granted May 24, 1943. See 63 S.Ct. 1175, 87 L.Ed. ___.

VINSON, Associate Justice.

This appeal concerns a jurisdictional dispute under the Railway Labor Act¹ between the appellee Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (Brotherhood), and the Switchmen's Union of North America (Switchmen's Union), appellants. The right to represent the 6,087 yardmen² employed in the several yards of the New York Central Railroad Company is the subject of controversy. The Brotherhood invoked the services of the appellee National Mediation Board (Board), presenting signed authorizations of 4,749 of the yardmen. The Board investigated the alleged dispute and held a hearing in which it made two important findings: (1) the New York Central Railroad Company is a single carrier for the purposes of the Act;³ (2) as a matter of law, the Act vested the Board with no discretion to split a single carrier for the purpose of determining those eligible to vote for the representative of a craft or class.

The Board conducted an election in which an overwhelming number⁴ of yardmen voted to be represented by the Brotherhood. The Board accordingly certified the latter as sole representative of all yardmen employed by the New York Central Railroad Company. The Switchmen's Union contested the certification, but was denied injunctive relief therefrom by the District Court. The Switchmen's Union is contending here that certain portions of the New York Central Railroad Company's lines, wherein it has acquired separate representation contracts with the yardmen, are separate carriers, and that the yardmen working thereon are separate crafts or classes entitled to a separate representation. Both the Board and the District Court have found these contentions to be without merit. The remainder of this opinion will develop the basis for our conviction that the judgment must be affirmed

It should be stated at the outset that we are not concerned with whether the Railroad Company can be considered a single carrier for all purposes. It is our province only to determine whether the Board was empowered by Congress to treat it as a unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.

I. The Integral Character of the Railroad Company.

The present composition of the New York Central Railroad Company is the consequence of consolidation and the acquisition of long term lease interests in sister railroads. In 1914, the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company,⁵ operating from New York to Buffalo, and the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, operating from Buffalo to Chicago, consolidated to form the New York Central Railroad Company. These two once separate sections of the consolidated railroad, while now commonly referred to respectively as New York Central-Lines East and New York Central-Lines West, are simply operating regions and have no corporate existence.

The Boston and Albany Railroad Company, the Michigan Central Railroad Company, the Big Four,⁶ and the Toledo and Ohio Central Railway Company are now a part of the New York Central Railroad Company, which operates these lines under long term leases. Three of these leases are for 99 years, renewable in perpetuity; the fourth terminates with the corporate existence of the lessor.⁷ Further, the New York Central Railroad Company has acquired 99.44 percent of the stock of the Michigan Central, 98.45 percent of the common stock and 85.18 percent of the preferred stock of Big Four, and a corporate interest in the Toledo and Ohio Central in excess of the amount necessary to possess a controlling ownership therein. It owns no stock in the Boston and Albany Railroad. All of the railroads hereinbefore referred to are now collectively known and designated as the New York Central Railroad Company, herein usually called the Railroad Company.

For many years, the yardmen working on the Railroad Company's lines have been employed solely by the Railroad Company; they have been represented by and are working under contracts negotiated by either the Brotherhood or the Switchmen's Union. On July 2, 1940, when the services of the Board were invoked, the Brotherhood represented all the yards on the Big Four, Toledo and Ohio Central, Boston and Albany, New York Central-Lines East, those yards on the Michigan Central east of the Detroit River,⁸ and nine yards on the New York Central-Lines West. The Switchmen's Union represented those yards on the Michigan Central west of the Detroit River and all but nine yards on the New York Central-Lines West.

The Act, as amended in 1934, expresses the purpose of providing for "the complete independence of carriers and of employees in the matter of self-organization". Section 1, First, purports to define a carrier: "The term `carrier' includes any express company, sleeping-car company, carrier by railroad, subject to the Interstate Commerce Act chapter 1 of Title 49, and any company which is directly or indirectly owned or controlled by or under common control with any carrier by railroad and which operates any equipment or facilities or performs any service (other than trucking service) in connection with the transportation, receipt, delivery, elevation, transfer in transit, refrigeration or icing, storage, and handling of property transported by railroad * * *."⁹

Appellants contend that, by the terms of the definition in Section 1, First, in which a "carrier" includes "any company which is directly or indirectly owned or controlled by or under common control with any carrier by railroad", the two lines upon which they have acquired representation contracts are carriers, and separate carriers by the terms of the Act. When the clause relied upon is replaced in its context and the section viewed in toto, it cannot be given the construction which appellants urge. That portion of the definition which precedes the italicized quotation appears to be inclusive of all functions of a carrier's railroad cars. We believe the remainder of the sentence is designed to include all the auxiliary services performed by instrumentalities other than railroads over which the carrier has the designated control. The words "any company", as used in the italicized excerpt relied upon by appellants, do not, in our opinion, mean "any railroad company"; instead the purpose of the words is to designate other types of companies which are owned or controlled by a carrier and employed for the enumerated purposes, and to place these companies under the authority of the Board.¹⁰ Italics supplied

In any event, it is a sufficient answer to the appellants' argument to say that, even if we misinterpret the somewhat ambiguous definitive provisions of this section, and Congress indeed meant that a railroad company so owned or controlled by a carrier was to be considered as a "carrier" for the purposes of the Act, the appellants' position still begs the question. Even if a railroad company so owned or controlled was intended to be a "carrier", there is nothing in the definition to show that it was intended to be a separate carrier. The inference is as valid that, by being so owned and controlled, the railroad company was to be considered as a part of the carrier that owned or controlled it.

We feel it is necessary to set out at this point the remaining relative sections of the Act as amended in 1934, in order that the evidence to follow may be examined with a mind to the legislative purpose:

"Section 2 § 152. * * * Fourth. Employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the craft or class for the purposes of this Act chapter.

* * * * *

"Ninth. If any dispute shall arise among a carrier's employees as to who are the representatives of such employees designated and authorized in accordance with the requirements of this Act chapter, it shall be the duty of the Mediation Board, upon request of either party to the dispute, to investigate such dispute and to certify to both parties, in writing, within thirty days after the receipt of the invocation of its services, the name or names of the individuals or organizations that have been designated and authorized to represent the employees involved in the dispute and certify the same to the carrier. Upon receipt of such certification the carrier shall treat with the representative so certified as the representative of the craft or class for the purposes of this Act chapter. In such an investigation, the Mediation Board shall be authorized to take a secret ballot of the employees involved, or to utilize any other appropriate method of ascertaining the names of their duly designated and authorized representatives in such manner as shall insure the choice of representatives by the employees without interference, influence, or coercion exercised by the carrier. In the conduct of any election for the purposes herein indicated the Board shall designate who may participate in the election and establish the rules...