Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

KNUDSEN v. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN R.Y. CO.

February 11, 1952

KNUDSEN
v.
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RY. CO.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: LA Buy, District Judge.

The amended complaint is brought by three named plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The named plaintiffs are alleged to be authorized to represent operating employees of the defendant in the litigation of this action. There are three counts in the amended complaint. The first is brought pursuant to Section 153, subd. 1(p) of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A., to enforce an order of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, plaintiffs claiming to be beneficiaries under such award. The second count and the third count rest jurisdiction upon diversity of citizenship and requisite jurisdictional amount. The second count alleges defendant has violated Appendix Rule 51 of the contract of January, 1927, between the Brotherhood and the railroad and that the Board has interpreted this rule to mean plaintiffs are entitled to one-half of all transfer work performed. The third count alleges that the carrier is violating Article II of the agreement of December 18, 1919, with the Brotherhood since plaintiffs are entitled to one-half of all the transfer work performed. It is alleged that plaintiffs are unable to ascertain the exact amount of damages and request an accounting from the defendant of all transfer work performed.

For a fuller understanding of the controversy sued on the following facts appear pertinent. Prior to January 1, 1927, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, alleged to be the duly certified bargaining agent of these plaintiffs, entered into a contract with the defendant fixing terms and conditions of employment. In said agreement Appendix Rule 51 provided in part as follows:

    "Definition — Work of Road and Terminal Firemen
  in Chicago.
    "51. Question 1. What constitutes work of
  Chicago Terminal Firemen?
    "Answer: The work of assembling and disposing
  of cars entirely within the terminal district,
  the local junction switch runs excepted, and
  includes freight and passenger switching,
  transfer service and work trains."

This rule is the basis of the administrative proceeding and of the second count of the amended complaint.

In addition on December 18, 1919 the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen entered into an agreement with defendant carrier and other railroads fixing rules and rates of pay of yardmen in the Chicago Switching District. Article III of said agreement defines yard work and provides in part:

    "(a) The following shall be considered yard
  work, shall be handled by yardmen and shall be
  compensated for at not less than yard
  rates. * * *
    "(c) The transfer of all freight and passenger
  equipment operating exclusively within the
  switching limits; * * *."

This article is the premise for the claim alleged in the third count of the amended complaint.

In 1941 the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen and the Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company became parties to a dispute submitted to the National Railroad Adjustment Board. The claims proferred by the Brotherhood were (1) one day's pay at the transfer rate April 1, 1939 and other dates, account Indiana Harbor Belt Railway taking cars from 40th Street to Wood Street over Chicago and Northwestern tracks; (3) a protest on account of foreign line yard crews taking interchange out of 40th Street, Proviso, Wood Street and all other points in Chicago terminal, handling same over Chicago and Northwestern rails between the above-named points where they leave Chicago and Northwestern tracks, and (3) that foregin line crews delivering cars to Chicago and Northwestern do so at the first available yard after entering Chicago and Northwestern territory.

On June 21, 1941, the Board made the following findings:

    "The protest is allowed and the parties are
  directed to forthwith negotiate a plan based on
  total volume of cars handled or trips made and
  miles traversed, which will place the employees
  of the carrier on a plane of approximate
  equality with the employees of each carrier with
  which cars are interchanged and ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.