Thompson v. New York Central Railroad Company, 215

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtLUMBARD, , and MEDINA and KAUFMAN, Circuit
Citation361 F.2d 137
PartiesCharles THOMPSON et al., each of them individually and on Behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America, and New York City Lodge 1085 of the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America, Defendants-Appellees.
Docket NumberDocket 30105.,No. 215,215
Decision Date17 May 1966

361 F.2d 137 (1966)

Charles THOMPSON et al., each of them individually and on Behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
The NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America, and New York City Lodge 1085 of the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 215, Docket 30105.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued January 12, 1966.

Decided May 17, 1966.

Rehearing Denied June 24, 1966.


361 F.2d 138

Burton H. Hall, New York City (Ira Gammerman and Bromsen & Gammerman, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.

James L. More, New York City (Gerald E. Dwyer, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee, The New York Central Railroad Co.

David T. Gibbons, New York City, for defendant-appellee, New York City Lodge 1085 of the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen of America.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and MEDINA and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEDINA, Circuit Judge.

In this action by certain employees of New York Central Railroad, located at Grand Central Terminal, against the Railroad and their Brotherhood collective bargaining agent and their local Lodge 1085, it was charged that a certain agreement of August 18, 1965, between the Railroad and the Brotherhood amounted to a discrimination against the employees at Grand Central Terminal. The first count of the complaint asserted that the terms of transfer of certain work from Mott Haven Yard to Grand Central Terminal granted "super-seniority" to the transferred Mott Haven Yard men to the detriment of plaintiffs, in violation of the duty of the Brotherhood fairly to bargain on behalf of all the employees it represents, and that in accomplishing this end the officers of the Brotherhood "agreed, colluded and conspired" with the Railroad. The second count alleged the same "super-seniority" as the imposition of "discipline," in violation of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. §§ 412, 529, for failure to afford plaintiffs the procedural safeguards prescribed by the terms of the statute. The action was designed to prevent the names of the men to be transferred from the Mott Haven Yard from being added to the Grand Central Terminal seniority roster except at the bottom. So, before the date of transfer, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction restraining the Railroad from putting the dove-tailing seniority plan into effect, and the Railroad made a cross-motion to dismiss the complaint under F.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6) and 12(b) (1). The Brotherhood was not made a party to these proceedings, as neither the motion papers on the application for the temporary injunction nor those supporting the cross-motion to dismiss were served on the Brotherhood or its counsel. The result was an order: (1) denying the motion for a preliminary injunction; (2) dismissing the first count of the complaint "with prejudice" for failure to state a claim for relief; and (3) dismissing the second count for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Levet's memorandum opinions are not reported. Plaintiffs appeal, and a certificate under F.R.Civ.P. 54(b) makes it proper for us to consider the order appealed from in its entirety.

As every phase of the controversy was thoroughly explored in the affidavits in support of and in opposition to the motion for a temporary injunction, and all the relevant documents were before the Court below, we think the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (6) should have been treated as a motion for summary

361 F.2d 139
judgment.1 When the chronology is straightened out and the sequence of events is described, including the various collective bargaining agreements that preceded the one of August 18, 1965, it clearly appears that many questions of interpretation of various provisions in the series of collective bargaining agreements lie at the base of what plaintiffs allege as "discrimination" against them, that the decision of these questions was within the exclusive competence of the appropriate Adjustment Board, and that summary judgment should have been granted dismissing the first count of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter. The August 18, 1965 agreement, which lies at the very center of the case, was merely one of a series of agreements implementing prior collective bargaining agreements in specific instances where work was to be transferred, abandoned, contracted out or similarly adjusted. We have decided: (1) summary judgment should have been granted dismissing as against the Railroad the first count of the complaint, based upon alleged discrimination in violation of the Railway Labor Act, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the second count was properly dismissed as against the Railroad as matter of law for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (3) the motion for a temporary injunction was properly denied

I.

Prior to 1962, except where a shop or repair facility was wholly discontinued, the various successive collective bargaining agreements did not permit the Railroad to accredit transferred employees, whether following their work or not, with seniority accumulated at their last locality of employment. The requirement was that such transferees be treated as junior employees in respect of length of service at the point to which they were transferred.2

In 1962 a new agreement was negotiated by the nonoperating unions with the Railroad. It required 60 days' notice to union officials when work was proposed to be transferred, with a provision for discussion of the matter before the change was made. If any new jobs were to be created at the location to which work was transferred, the employees at the original location had first rights to these jobs, according to seniority; and transferred employees were to be "included on the appropriate seniority roster at the new location with full seniority effective with the date of assignment." This procedure of dove-tailing seniority was apparently adopted without protest. The 1962 contract also prescribed certain pay guarantees for transferred employees and unemployment insurance benefits for men whose low seniority prevented them from obtaining new jobs at the transferee location. This agreement, dated April 3, 1962, was to "become

361 F.2d 140
effective February 1, 1962 and will continue in effect thereafter subject to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act as amended."

In 1964, a mediation agreement was negotiated at Washington, D. C., between the shop crafts unions, including the carmen's union, and the major United States rail carriers, including New York Central.

Provision is made in the 1964 agreement for notice by a carrier of its intention to transfer work between locations and for discussions with the employees' representative concerning such proposed transfer. Any employee continued in service after a particular "coordination" is assured that he will not be placed in a worse position with respect to compensation and rules governing working conditions than he occupied at the time of the "coordination," this guarantee to continue for up to 5 years. On the other hand, an employee who is "deprived of employment" as a result of a "coordination" is provided with a "dismissal allowance" equal to 60% of his average monthly compensation over the previous twelve months, and the duration of these monthly payments, up to a maximum of 60 months, is keyed to length of service. An employee is considered "deprived of employment" and entitled to this "coordination" allowance:

1. When the position which he holds on his home road is abolished as result of coordination and he is unable to obtain by the exercise of his seniority rights another position on his home road or a position in the coordinated operation, or
2. When the position he holds on his home road is not abolished but he loses that position as a result of the exercise of seniority rights by an employee whose position is abolished as a result of said coordination, or by other employees, brought about as a proximate consequence of the coordination, and if he is unable by the exercise of his seniority rights to secure another position on his home road or a position in the coordinated operation. Article I — Employee Protection, Section 6(c).

Section 11 of Article I, which deals with transfer of work procedures, is most significant, in the context of the facts of this case:

When positions are abolished as a result of changes in the carrier\'s operations * * * and all or part of the work of the abolished positions is transferred to another location or locations, the selection and assignment of forces to perform the work in question shall be provided for by agreement of the General Chairman of the craft or crafts involved and the carrier establishing provisions appropriate for application in the particular case; provided however, that under the terms of the agreement sufficient employees will be required to accept employment within their classification so as to insure a force adequate to meet the carrier\'s requirements. In the event of failure to reach such agreement, the dispute may be submitted by either party for settlement as hereinafter provided.

What this means is that, in specific instances of "coordinations" under the 1964 national agreement, separate implementing agreements are to be negotiated by and between the General Chairman of the craft involved and the carrier regarding the details of each "coordination," subject to the over-all policies described in the master agreement.

This brings us to the agreement of August 18, 1965, which appellants assert is invalid by reason of discrimination. In compliance with the provisions of the 1964 agreement, and on July 16, 1965, the Railroad gave notice to five affected unions of a plan to transfer the terminal servicing of five trains from its Mott Haven Yard in the Bronx to Grand Central Terminal. The Railroad proposed to reduce...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Davis-Edwards Pharmacal Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 4, 1971
    ...Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 44 F.2d 577 (D.Minn.1930); Norstrom v. Wahl, 27 F.2d 637 (7th Cir. 1928); cf. Thompson v. New York Central R. Co., 361 F.2d 137, 145-146 (2d Cir. 1966). No one questions the fact that meprobamate (2-methyl-2-propyl-1,3 propanediol dicarbamate) had not existed b......
  • Barrett v. United Hospital
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • May 23, 1974
    ......1716. . United States District Court, S. D. New York. . May 23, 1974. 376 F. Supp. 792 ...Thompson v. New York Central Railroad Company, 361 F.2d 137 (2d Cir ......
  • Phelan v. Local 305 of United Ass'n of Journeymen, and Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of U.S. and Canada
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • August 25, 1992
    ...... Rather, as this Circuit has "consistently held," Thompson v. New York Central Railroad Co., 361 F.2d 137, 145 (2d ......
  • Abrams v. Carrier Corporation
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • November 4, 1970
    ...of speech in the conduct of union affairs, and due process in disciplinary proceedings. Relying upon Thompson v. New York Central Railroad Company, 361 F. 2d 137 (2d Cir. 1966), Judge Port held that the allegations of the complaint did not confer subject-matter jurisdiction over Carrier. In......
  • 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