Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Ocean Lodge No 76, No. 37
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | STONE |
| Citation | 323 U.S. 210,89 L.Ed. 187,65 S.Ct. 235 |
| Docket Number | No. 37 |
| Decision Date | 18 December 1944 |
| Parties | TUNSTALL v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, OCEAN LODGE NO. 76, et al |
v.
BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN, OCEAN LODGE NO. 76, et al.
Mr. Charles H. Houston, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Page 211
Mr. James G. Martin, of Norfolk, Va., for respondent Norfolk Southern ry. co.
Mr. Harold C. Heiss, of Cleveland, Ohio, for respondents Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen et al.
Mr. Chief Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to No. 45, Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co., Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen et al., 323 U.S. 192, 65 S.Ct. 226, in which we answered in the affirmative a question also presented in this case. The question is whether the Railway Labor Act, 48 Stat. 1185, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., imposes on a labor organization, acting as the exclusive bargaining representative of a craft or class of railway employees, the duty to represent all the employees in the craft without discrimination because of their race. The further question in this case is whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain a non-diversity suit in which petitioner, a railway employee subject to the Act, seeks remedies by injunction and award of damages for the failure of the union bargaining representative of his craft to perform the duty imposed on it by the Act, to represent petitioner and other members of his craft without discrimination because of race.
Petitioner, a Negro fireman, employed by the Norfolk & Southern Railway, brought this suit in the District Court against the Railway, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire-
Page 212
men and Enginemen and certain of its subsidiary lodges, and one of its officers, setting up, in all material respects, a cause of action like that alleged in the Steele case. The Brotherhood, a labor union, is the designated bargaining representative under the Railway Labor Act, for the craft of firemen of which petitioner is a member, and is accepted as such by the Railway and its employees.
Acting as such the Brotherhood gave to the Railroad the notice of March 28, 1940, and later entered into the contract of February 18, 1941 and its subsequent modifications, all of which were the subject of our consideration in the Steele case. Petitioner complains of the discriminatory application of the contract provisions to him and other Negro members of his craft in favor of 'promotable', i.e., white, firemen, by which he has been deprived of his preexisting seniority rights, removed from the interstate passenger run to which he was assigned and then assigned to more arduous and difficult work with longer hours in yard service, his place in the passenger service being filled by a white fireman.
He alleges that the contract was signed and put into effect without notice to him or other Negro members of his craft, and without opportunity for them to be heard with respect to its terms, and that his protests and demands for relief to the Railway and the Brotherhood have been unavailing. Petitioner prays for a declaratory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Association of Machinists v. Street, No. 4
...and nonunion. Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 65 S.Ct. 226; Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210, 65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed. 187. The principal argument made by the unions in 1950 was based on their role in this regulatory framework. They mainta......
-
Local Division 519 v. LaCrosse Municipal Trans., No. 77-C-292.
...there was an implied federal court remedy,4 that question was not decided. In Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210, 65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed. 187 (1944), a black fireman sued the railroad and the union in a federal district court complaining of discriminato......
-
Western Addition Community Organization v. NLRB, No. 71-1656.
...Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R.R., 323 U.S. 192, 65 S.Ct. 226, 89 L.Ed. 173 (1944); Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, 323 U.S. 210, 65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed. 187 (1944). Under such circumstances a union's decision to proceed on 485 F.2d 931 an individual basis could not, in ou......
-
Commonwealth of Pa. v. Local U. No. 542, Int. U. of Op. Eng., Civ. A. No. 71-2698.
...Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 65 S.Ct. 226, 89 L.Ed. 173 (1944); Tunstall v. Bhd. of Locomotive Fireman, 323 U.S. 210, 65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed. 187 (1944); H.R. Rep.No.718, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 2-3 (1965) which states: "The following points will pertinently emphasize......
-
International Association of Machinists v. Street, No. 4
...and nonunion. Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 65 S.Ct. 226; Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210, 65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed. 187. The principal argument made by the unions in 1950 was based on their role in this regulatory framework. They mainta......
-
Local Division 519 v. LaCrosse Municipal Trans., No. 77-C-292.
...there was an implied federal court remedy,4 that question was not decided. In Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210, 65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed. 187 (1944), a black fireman sued the railroad and the union in a federal district court complaining of discriminato......
-
Western Addition Community Organization v. NLRB, No. 71-1656.
...Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R.R., 323 U.S. 192, 65 S.Ct. 226, 89 L.Ed. 173 (1944); Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, 323 U.S. 210, 65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed. 187 (1944). Under such circumstances a union's decision to proceed on 485 F.2d 931 an individual basis could not, in ou......
-
Commonwealth of Pa. v. Local U. No. 542, Int. U. of Op. Eng., Civ. A. No. 71-2698.
...Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 65 S.Ct. 226, 89 L.Ed. 173 (1944); Tunstall v. Bhd. of Locomotive Fireman, 323 U.S. 210, 65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed. 187 (1944); H.R. Rep.No.718, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 2-3 (1965) which states: "The following points will pertinently emphasize......
-
The United States Supreme Court and the Segregation Issue
...Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. R.,323 U. S. 192 (1944) ; and Tunstall v. Brother-hood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen,323 U. S. 210 (1944).44 339 U. S. 460 (1950).45 303 U. S. 552 (1938).46 100 U. S. 303 (1880).47 "Constitutional Law and Civil Rights,"New York Univers......