Union Railroad Co. v. NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUST. BD.
| Citation | 170 F. Supp. 281 |
| Decision Date | 08 December 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 56 C 936.,56 C 936. |
| Parties | UNION RAILROAD COMPANY v. NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD, FOURTH DIVISION, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Sidley, Austin, Burgess & Smith, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
William J. Milroy, Chicago, Ill., for certain defendants.
Martin, Craig, Chester & Sonnenschein, Chicago, Ill., for certain defendants.
Edward B. Henslee, Martin K. Henslee and John J. Naughton, Chicago, Ill., for certain defendants.
Goldberg, Devoe, Shadur & Mikva, Chicago, Ill., for certain defendants.
This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief. It arises under the laws of the United States, and the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds $3,000. The action was tried to the court alone upon briefs, oral argument and a stipulation of facts which, in substance, is as follows:
The plaintiff is a Pennsylvania corporation and is a "carrier" within the definition of that term in the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. The defendant National Railroad Adjustment Board, Fourth Division (hereinafter "Fourth Division") is an administrative body created by the Railway Labor Act. The Fourth Division consists of six members, three appointed by labor unions and three appointed by carriers. Defendants West, Ryan and Tahney are Labor Members of the Fourth Division, and defendants Hagerman, Carter and Conway are Carrier Members. Defendant Pope is the Executive Secretary of the Fourth Division. Defendants Johnson and Coburn are referees selected by the National Mediation Board to sit in certain cases of the Adjustment Board. Defendant Johnson participated in Fourth Division Award No. 1093 and defendant Coburn participated in Fourth Division Award No. 1223.
Defendant United Steel Workers of America (hereinafter "Steelworkers") is a labor organization within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act. Steelworkers is the collective bargaining representative for certain persons employed by plaintiff, which persons constitute a class too numerous to be brought before the court. Similarly, the total membership of Steelworkers constitutes a class too numerous to be brought before the court. Defendants Doherty, Germano and Mills are members, officers, and agents of Steelworkers, and fairly and adequately represent both classes.
Defendant Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (hereinafter "Trainmen") is also a labor organization within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act. Trainmen is the collective bargaining representative for certain persons employed by plaintiff, which persons constitute a class too numerous to be brought before the court. The total membership of Trainmen also constitutes a class too numerous to be brought before the court. Defendants Fern and Vander Hei are members, officers and agents of Trainmen, and fairly and adequately represent both of these classes.
From April 1914 until the present, plaintiff has operated a coal dock at Duquesne, Pennsylvania. Coal and fluorspar are brought by barge to the dock, are unloaded into a tipple, and flow by chute into freight cars which are moved from an "empty yard" to the chute and then to a "loaded yard." The empty cars are set into the "empty yard" by trainmen, and the loaded cars are picked up in the "loaded yard" and switched, classified and moved by trainmen. The intermediate work in the coal dock is performed by carloaders. Since 1938, the carloaders have been covered by agreements between Steelworkers and plaintiff. The last such agreement became effective on May 1, 1947. Since 1943, plaintiff's trainmen have been represented by Trainmen and covered by an agreement between Trainmen and plaintiff, effective November 1, 1943.
In August 1950, plaintiff first received time claims from Trainmen requesting that three employees represented by Trainmen be assigned to perform the work of the carloaders. Trainmen contended that the work was covered by its collective bargaining agreement with plaintiff. These claims were processed by plaintiff in accordance with customary grievance procedures, and the claims were denied on the ground that the disputed work had been performed by carloaders since 1914.
In July 1953, the plaintiff and Trainmen entered into an agreement establishing Special Board of Adjustment No. 45 (hereinafter "Special Board") to dispose of pending time claims and grievances filed by members of Trainmen against plaintiff. This agreement provided in part:
The agreement further provided that awards of the Special Board were to be "final and binding on both parties to the dispute."
In Case No. 34, the Special Board considered the time claims by Trainmen that trainmen should perform the coal dock work then being performed by carloaders. Plaintiff contended that, since the disputed work had always been performed by carloaders, both carloaders and Steelworkers should be given notice of the proceedings, and Steelworkers should be given the opportunity to participate. However, the Special Board refused to give notice. The incumbent carloaders did not have actual knowledge of the proceedings and did not authorize the plaintiff to represent them. Steelworkers did not participate in any hearings of the Special Board as a party to the controversy. However, plaintiff advised the president of Steelworkers' Local Lodge 1913 of a "reopened hearing" of the Special Board to take additional evidence, and he testified at that hearing. However, neither the carloaders nor any members of their class specifically authorized the president to represent them.
In December 1953, Award No. 34 was issued by a majority of the Special Board (labor member and neutral member) sustaining Trainmen's claim. Thereafter, plaintiff assigned three employees represented by Trainmen to work at the coal dock, and plaintiff reduced the number of carloaders from four or five to two. In addition plaintiff promptly paid time claims in accordance with Award No. 34, in the sum of approximately $1,200. Pursuant to the agreement by which it was created, the Special Board went out of existence after disposing of all claims and grievances submitted to it.
No appeal was taken from Judge Marsh's decision. In accordance with its understanding of Judge Marsh's decree, plaintiff restored the disputed work to the carloaders and discontinued the use of employees represented by Trainmen. On August 4, 1954, Trainmen informed plaintiff that it still asserted the time claims covering the disputed work. Trainmen contended that Judge Marsh's decree did not invalidate Award No. 34 as between plaintiff and Trainmen. Trainmen continues to assert its intention to enforce the award, and as of January 20, 1958, the time claims amounted to more than $22,500.
In August 1954, Steelworkers attempted to invoke the services of the National Mediation Board, but that Board declined to accept the case, stating that the National Railroad Adjustment Board was the proper administrative forum.
In April 1955, Steelworkers attempted to file a claim with the Fourth Division requesting a determination of the carloaders' right to the disputed work pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between plaintiff and Steelworkers. Both the instant plaintiff and Trainmen were made parties respondent. By letter of April 26, 1955, the executive secretary of the Fourth Division refused to accept the claim until Trainmen was deleted as a party respondent. In May 1955, Steelworkers filed a revised claim with the Fourth Division and did not join Trainmen as a party. This claim was assigned Docket No. 1089.
As a result of the Fourth Division's refusal to accept Trainmen as a respondent, the instant plaintiff moved Judge Marsh to order all of the defendants in the Sadler case to join in the submission of the dispute to the Fourth Division. In the alternative, the instant plaintiff moved Judge Marsh to declare that the defendants refusing to join would be bound by the Award of the Fourth Division. These alternative motions were denied by Judge Marsh in a written but unpublished opinion.
On November 17, 1955,...
To continue reading
Request your trial