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.

MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS R. CO. v. NAT'L. R.R. A. BD.

September 2, 1954

MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY AND MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY OF TEXAS, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTMENT BOARD ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

    1. Plaintiff Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company [hereinafter called "MKT"] is a corporation of the State of Missouri, with its principal office and place of business in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. It owns and operates lines of railroad in interstate commerce and in intrastate commerce in the States of Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma.

2. Plaintiff Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company of Texas [hereinafter called "MKT"] is a corporation of the State of Texas, with its principal office and place of business in the City of Dallas, Dallas County, Texas. It owns and operates lines of railroad in interstate commerce and in intrastate commerce in the State of Texas.

3. Defendant National Railroad Adjustment Board [hereinafter called "Board"] is an agency of the United States of America, created by Section 3, First of the Railway Labor Act of 1934, 45 U.S.C.A. § 153, First, with its headquarters in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

4. Defendant Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board [hereinafter called "Board"] is an agency of the United States of America, created by Section 3, First (h) of the Railway Labor Act of 1934, 45 U.S.C.A. § 153, First (h), with its headquarters in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

5. Defendants C.P. Dugan, J.E. Kemp, R.M. Butler, W.H. Castle, E.T. Horsley, J.H. Sylvester, Gerald Orndorff, Roger Sarchet, C.R. Barnes, and J.W. Whitehouse, are members of the National Railroad Adjustment Board and members of the Third Division of that Board; they maintain their offices in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, and reside in one or more of the counties within the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants R.M. Butler, W.H. Castle, E.T. Horsley, C.R. Barnes, and J.W. Whitehouse, were substituted for original defendants R.H. Allison, C.C. Cook, A.H. Jones, A.J. Cunningham and A.R. Ferris, whose tenure of office terminated during these proceedings.

6. Defendant Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes [hereinafter called "BRC"] is an unincorporated association of clerks and other employees of MKT, and of other railroad companies, and of other employers, throughout the United States.

7. BRC has its principal office and place of business in the City of Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio, but it has an office and does business in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

8. BRC has submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Court in this case.

9. BRC is the collective bargaining agent under the Railway Labor Act for the craft or class of employees commonly called "Clerks" on the lines of railroad operated by MKT and on the lines of other railroad companies throughout the United States. In those capacities, BRC makes collective bargaining agreements with MKT and other railroad companies. All members of that craft or class are subject to such agreements.

10. BRC has a special Bureau which selects claims against railroads and progresses them to the Board in order to procure awards which will establish principles and precedents for use by BRC on those railroads and on other railroads in obtaining compliance with similar agreement provisions.

11. Awards 3932, 3933, and 3934, rendered by the Board in Dockets CL-3714, CL-3715, and CL-3716, established the principle that employees represented by BRC have the right to perform station clerical work. BRC will use those awards as precedents.

12. The members of BRC constitute a class; there are more than 200,000 members of that class and they are too numerous to bring them all before the Court; and the members of that class have a common interest in the facts and law of this case.

13. Defendant G.B. Goble is one of the members of BRC constituting a class. He is also one of seven Vice Grand Presidents of BRC and is a member of its Grand Executive Council which has jurisdiction over the affairs of BRC.

14. Goble maintains an office in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, and he resides in McHenry County, Illinois.

15. Goble is sued individually, as an officer and managing agent of BRC, as a representative of the Grand Lodge, Subordinate Units, System Boards of Adjustment, District Boards of Adjustment, Terminal Boards of Adjustment, and Lodges, of BRC, and as a representative of the members of BRC constituting a class.

16. Over a period of fourteen years prior to his becoming Vice Grand President, Goble represented BRC on the Chicago and North Western Railroad System Board of Adjustment, first as a member, then as Vice General Chairman, then as General Secretary-Treasurer, and then as General Chairman.

17. In 1935, Goble was assigned by the Grand President of BRC to duties of Grand Lodge Representative in the Chicago District. In 1936, the Grand Executive Council of BRC elected him to the position of Vice Grand President. He was elected Vice Grand President of BRC at the Toronto Convention in 1939; at the St. Louis Convention in 1943; at the Cincinnati Convention in 1947; and at the San Francisco Convention in 1951. The delegates to those conventions elected Goble; and they had been elected by members of BRC Lodges throughout the United States, including the BRC Lodges on MKT.

18. Goble is required by BRC's Constitution to perform such duties as the Grand President of BRC assigns to him, to do all in his power to promote the organization of BRC and advance its welfare, and to consult with and assist BRC's System Boards of Adjustment in securing adjustments of wage and schedule disputes.

19. As required by BRC's Constitution, Goble made full and complete printed reports of his official acts and work to each session of the Grand Lodge Convention of BRC. Those reports and his testimony in this case show:

(a) Since 1936, Goble, as Vice Grand President of BRC, has represented that Organization, on assignments from its Grand President, in controversies on 55 railroads, including:

    Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
    Chicago and Eastern Illinois
    Chicago and North Western
    Chicago, Burlington and Quincy
    Chicago Great Western
    Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific
    Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific
    Chicago Union Station
    Erie
    Grand Trunk
    Great Northern
    Illinois Central
    Michigan Central
    Minneapolis & St. Louis
    Minneapolis, St. Paul, & Sault Ste. Marie
    New York Central
    Pennsylvania
    Pere Marquette
    St. Louis-San Francisco
    Wabash.

(b) Goble performed those duties in Washington, D.C. and at other places such as:

State                                    City
Illinois:                                Chicago;
                                         Springfield
Iowa:                                    Oelwein
Michigan:                                Detroit; Escanaba
Minnesota:                               Duluth; St. Paul
Missouri:                                St. Louis
Ohio:                                    Cincinnati
Wisconsin:                               Milwaukee

(c) Goble's activities, as a member and as Vice Grand President of BRC, covered a variety of subjects affecting BRC, its members, and the class or craft represented by it, including:

(1) Representing BRC in elections to determine the collective bargaining agent for employees, and procuring recognition for BRC in other representation disputes, without the necessity of elections.

(2) Negotiating, revising, interpreting and applying collective bargaining agreements covering wages, rules, and working conditions.

(3) Participating in proceedings of the National Mediation Board relating to controversies between BRC and railroad companies over rules and wages.

(4) Handling claims and grievances arising out of collective bargaining agreements.

(5) Participating in arbitration cases under the Railway Labor Act, and sometimes acting as BRC's arbitrator in disputes with railroad companies over the making or revision of collective bargaining agreements.

(6) Protecting employees displaced by railroad consolidations or affected by the coordination of facilities or the pooling of traffic.

(7) Representing BRC on a committee created for the purpose of providing greater labor representation on a railroad system hospital board, and dealing with problems of hospital administration.

(8) Advising and consulting with officers and members of BRC on all kinds of organization work.

(9) Assisting in the formation of a State Representative Committee for BRC.

(10) Representing BRC, during absences of its Grand President, in conferences and negotiations between the Labor Committee and the Railroad Management Committee, which resulted in the 1941 National Wage Increase for Non-Operating Railroad Employees.

(11) Representing BRC in national wage conferences and mediation proceedings which resulted in the 1945 national wage increases.

(12) Representing BRC in the wage dispute between the Cooperating Railway Labor Organizations and the Short Line Railroads, which was disposed of in accordance with the recommendations made by a Presidential Emergency Board.

(13) Representing BRC in negotiations between the Fourteen Cooperating Standard Railroad Labor Organizations and the Carriers Conference Committee, which resulted in the 1945 amendments to the National Vacation Agreement.

(14) Representing BRC on the National Vacation Committee, which dealt with questions arising under the National Vacation Agreement.

(15) Participating in conferences with representatives of the Railway Express Agency and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, concerning the representation of express drivers in Detroit, Michigan.

(16) Participating in proceedings which extended BRC's agreement to cover additional positions.

(17) Representing BRC in jurisdictional disputes with other organizations, including ORT.

20. Goble is such a member of the BRC class as will fairly insure the adequate representation in this cause of all members of said class.

21. Goble is a person whose relationship to BRC is such that it could reasonably be expected that he would give and he did give, notice of this action to BRC.

22. Goble is a person whose relationship to BRC is such that it could be reasonably expected that he would give notice of this action to BRC's Grand Lodge, Subordinate Units, System Boards of Adjustment, District Boards of Adjustment, Terminal Boards of Adjustment, and Lodges.

23. Defendant The Order of Railroad Telegraphers [hereinafter called "ORT"] is an unincorporated association of agents, telegraphers, and other employees of MKT and other railroad companies throughout the United States.

24. ORT has its principal office and place of business in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, but it has an office and does business in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

25. ORT has submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Court in this case.

26. ORT is the collective bargaining agent under the Railway Labor Act for the craft or class of employees commonly called "Telegraphers" on the lines of railroad operated by MKT and on the lines of other railroad companies throughout the United States. In those capacities, ORT makes collective bargaining agreements with MKT and with other railroad companies. All members of that craft or class are subject to such agreements.

27. ORT has a special Bureau which selects claims against railroads and progresses them to the Board in order to procure awards which will establish principles and precedents for use by ORT on those railroads and on other railroads in obtaining compliance with similar agreement provisions.

28. Awards 4735 and 5014, rendered by the Board in Dockets TE-4540 and TE-4953, established the principle that employees represented by ORT have the right to perform station clerical work. ORT will use those awards as precedents.

29. The members of ORT constitute a class; there are more than 40,000 members of that class and they are too numerous to bring them all before the Court; and the members of that class have a common interest in the facts and law of this case.

30. Defendant H.C. Kearby is one of the members of ORT constituting a class. At the time of service of process upon him, Kearby was also Second Vice-President of ORT and was one of nine Vice-Presidents of that Organization. He retired as Second Vice-President of ORT in 1953 but he is still a member of ORT.

31. When this action was commenced and when Kearby was served with process, he resided in Cook County, Illinois, and he maintained an office in his home in that County.

32. Kearby is sued individually, as an officer and managing agent of ORT, as a representative of the Grand Division, Subordinate Divisions, System Divisions, Local Divisions, and Local Boards of Adjustment, of ORT, and as representative of the members of ORT constituting a class.

33. Kearby retired in 1953 and moved to Florida. At that time, he had been a Vice-President of ORT for more than 12 years. Kearby was elected by delegates to the Conventions of ORT who had been elected by members of ORT Lodges throughout the United States, including the ORT Lodges on MKT.

34. While a Vice-President of ORT, Kearby was required by ORT's Constitution to devote his entire time to the interest of ORT under instructions from its President.

35. Before his election as a Vice-President of ORT, Kearby was a Local Chairman of ORT for 5 years and a General Chairman of ORT for 12 years, both on the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; and, in those capacities, Kearby interpreted ORT's collective agreement with that Company and handled claims and grievances based upon the rules and working conditions of that agreement.

36. As required by ORT's Constitution, Kearby made printed reports of his official acts and work to each regular session of the Grand Division of ORT. Those reports and his testimony in this case show:

(a) During the period 1940 to 1953, Kearby, as a Vice-President of ORT, represented that Organization on assignments from its President, in a multitude of controversies on 54 railroads, including:

    Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
    Atlantic Coast Line
    Chicago, Burlington and Quincy
    Chicago and Eastern Illinois
    Chicago Great Western
    Chicago and North Western
    Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific
    Colorado Southern
    Denver & Rio Grande Western
    Erie
    Florida East Coast
    Gulf, Mobile & Ohio
    Illinois Central
    Michigan Central
    Missouri-Kansas-Texas
    Missouri Pacific
    New York Central
    Northern Pacific
    Pennsylvania
    Pere Marquette
    Pittsburgh & Lake Erie
    Rutland
    St. Louis Southwestern
    Southern Pacific
    Texas & Pacific
    Union Pacific
  (b) Kearby performed those duties in Washington, D.C. and at other places such as:
State                                 City
Alabama:                              Mobile
California:                           Los Angeles;
                                      San Francisco
Colorado:                             Denver
Florida:                              St. Augustine
Illinois:                             Chicago
Indiana:                              Indianapolis
Michigan:                             Detroit
Minnesota:                            Duluth;
                                      Minneapolis;
                                      St. Paul
Missouri:                             Kansas City;
                                      St. Louis
Nebraska:                             Omaha
North Carolina:                       Wilmington
Ohio:                                 Cincinnati
Pennsylvania:                         Pittsburgh
Texas:                                Dallas;
                                      Fort Worth;
                                      Houston;
                                      San Antonio
Washington:                           Spokane

(c) Kearby's activities, as a member and as a Vice-President of ORT, covered a variety of subjects affecting ORT, its members, and the class or craft represented by it, including:

(1) Negotiating rules and working conditions and making collective agreements on numerous railroads.

(2) Interpreting agreements between ORT and various railroads.

(3) Preparing ORT cases for submission to the National Mediation Board and representing ORT in more than 20 mediation cases on various railroads and in hearings before that Board in Washington, D.C.

(4) Representing ORT in negotiating agreements providing for employee representation in the administration of railroad hospital associations.

(5) Disposing of claims and grievances on various railroads in conferences with General Chairmen of ORT and railroad officials.

(6) Assisting General Chairmen of ORT in interpreting and applying ORT agreements on all types of claims.

(7) Negotiating supplements to ORT collective agreements on various railroads to include provisions of the National 40-Hour Week Agreement.

(8) Negotiating for increases in rates of pay of specific positions on various railroads.

(9) Acting as ORT's representative in hearings on line abandonment applications conducted by the Interstate Commerce Commission at various places, including Washington, D.C.

(10) Opposing applications to State Commissions for authority to close railroad stations.

(11) Preparing cases, in the office of ORT's President, for submission to the Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board.

(12) Serving as ORT Member of the Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board.

(13) Directing, from Peoria, Illinois, the activities of ORT members during the railroad strike on the Toledo, Peoria & Western, from October 1, 1945 to May 1, 1947.

(14) Conferring, at Dallas, Texas, with ORT General Chairman Thompson, and personally handling a dispute on MKT between ORT and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

(15) Gathering data for use by ORT in its unsuccessful effort to intervene in BRC cases before the Board, involving station clerical work; and handling disputes created between ORT and the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company when that Company transferred station clerical work from employees subject to its agreement with ORT to employees subject to its agreement with BRC.

37. H.C. Kearby is such a member of the ORT class as will fairly insure the adequate representation in this cause of all members of said class.

38. H.C. Kearby is a person whose relationship to ORT is such that it could reasonably be expected that he would give, and he did give, notice of this action to ORT.

39. H.C. Kearby is a person whose relationship to ORT is such that it could be reasonably expected that he would give notice of this action to ORT's Grand Division, Subordinate Divisions, System Divisions, Local Divisions, and Local Boards of Adjustment.

40. Defendant R.B. Boyington is one of the members of ORT constituting a class. He is also a director of ORT and Chairman of its Board of Directors.

41. Boyington maintains an office in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, and he resides in Cook County, Illinois.

42. Boyington is sued individually, as an officer and managing agent of ORT, as a representative of the Grand Division, Subordinate Divisions, System Divisions, Local Divisions, and Local Boards of Adjustment, of ORT, and as a representative of the members of ORT constituting a class.

43. Boyington was appointed a director in April 1944 to fill a vacancy. He was elected a director at the 1946 Convention of ORT by the delegates who had been elected by members of ORT Lodges throughout the United States, including ORT Lodges on MKT. On October 1, 1952, the directors elected Boyington as Chairman of the Board.

44. Boyington is also General Chairman of Subordinate Division 76 of ORT and is Division Chairman of ORT on the Chicago and North Western Railroad. He has been a General Chairman of ORT for 32 years and Local Chairman in the Chicago Terminal for 40 years.

45. In the capacity of Local Chairman, Boyington handled employee grievances with the General Chairman and railroad officers, and he also handled claims of employees based on alleged violations of collective agreements by the railroad.

46. As General Chairman, Boyington negotiated, signed and approved BRC collective agreements; interpreted or applied such agreements; and participated in mediation proceedings on disputes under them.

47. As required by ORT's Constitution, the Board of Directors made printed reports of all its official acts to each regular session of the Grand Division of ORT. Those reports and the testimony of Boyington in this case show:

(a) Many powers are conferred upon the Board of Directors of ORT by Article 13 of its Constitution. Among others, the Board is authorized to entertain all appeals from decisions of ORT's Grand Officers. While Boyington has been a member, the Board of Directors has entertained 68 appeals from decisions of the President of ORT. Those appeals involved disputes on many railroads, including:

    Baltimore and Ohio
    Boston & Maine
    Chesapeake and Ohio
    Chicago, Burlington and Quincy
    Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific
    Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific
    Delaware, Lackawanna & Western
    Erie
    Illinois Central
    Louisiana and Arkansas
    Louisville & Nashville
    New York Central
    Northern Pacific
    Pennsylvania
    St. Louis-San Francisco
    Seaboard Air Line
    Southern Pacific
    Union Pacific
    Wabash

(b) The appeals to the Board of Directors of ORT were from the following States:

    California
    Florida
    Indiana
    Iowa
    Louisiana
    Maine
    Minnesota
    Missouri

    Nebraska
    New York
    Pennsylvania
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas

(c) The activities of Boyington, as a member of the Board of Directors of ORT, have covered a wide range of subjects affecting ORT, its members, and the class or craft represented by it, including:

(1) Ruling on appeals from decisions of the President, regarding:

a. Interpretation of ORT's collective agreements as to seniority, displacement, and other employment rights.

b. Authority of General Chairmen to negotiate amendments to current collective agreements.

c. Validity of compromise settlement of dispute over request for upward adjustment of rates of pay of certain positions.

d. Reinstatement of discharged employee to his former position.

e. Legality of obtaining vote of members of General Committee by means of a mail ballot instead of at a meeting of the General Committee.

f. Extent of penalty which should be imposed on an officer of ORT whose removal was demanded by a member on the ground of unbecoming conduct.

g. Duty of a General Chairman to vote in order to break a tie vote of the General Committee, instead of declaring the measure lost by reason of a tie.

h. Whether appellant should have been called for service when a railroad permitted the use of teletype machines to receive incoming messages and other matters of record during hours when ORT employees were not assigned to duty.

i. Whether blocking of trains by switchtenders during the Laramie Avenue underpass construction by the City of Chicago, in 1949, was a violation of the Joint Relations Agreement of 1934 which ORT and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (BRT) negotiated for the purpose of providing a basis of settling jurisdictional disputes between ORT and BRT.

j. Should a railroad employee, while employed as a staff officer of ORT, be entitled to an indefinite leave of absence with right to return to his railroad position.

k. Should an improperly classified employee be removed from a position upon being properly classified or should the position be bulletined.

l. When an employee is discharged for cause and does not appeal, is he, upon being rehired, entitled to his previous standing on the seniority roster.

m. Was an election for the unexpired term of a Local Chairman valid when it included two districts before their consolidation had been duly consummated.

(2) Conferring with ORT President Leighty concerning the advisability of his accepting the Chairmanship of the Railway Labor Executives' Association, and approving his acceptance of that position.

(3) Conferring with ORT President and members of his staff, concerning schedule matters and appeal cases on the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad.

(4) Keeping fully informed of all business transactions of ORT.

(5) Requiring the officers of ORT to file bonds satisfactory to the Board of Directors and exercising charge of such bonds.

(6) Exercising full power to enforce the laws of ORT as they affect the work of the Grand Officers.

48. R.B. Boyington is such a member of the ORT class as will fairly insure the adequate representation in this cause of all members of said class.

49. R.B. Boyington is a person whose relationship to ORT is such that it could reasonably be expected that he would give notice of this action to ORT and to its Grand Division, Subordinate Divisions, System Divisions, Local Divisions, and Local Boards of Adjustment.

50. Defendant J.W. Whitehouse is one of the members of ORT constituting a class. He is also Seventh Vice-President of ORT and a labor member of the Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board.

51. Whitehouse maintains an office and resides in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

52. Whitehouse is sued individually, as an officer and managing agent of ORT, as a representative of the Grand Division, Subordinate Divisions, System Divisions, Local Divisions, and Local Boards of Adjustment, of ORT, and as a representative of the members of ORT constituting a class.

53. Whitehouse was appointed Seventh Vice-President of ORT, by its Board of Directors, to fill a vacancy, effective March 1, 1950. He was elected to that position at the regular session of the Grand Division of ORT in 1952 by the delegates who had been elected by the members of the Lodges of ORT throughout the United States, including those on MKT.

54. Whitehouse is required by ORT's Constitution to devote his entire time to the interests of ORT under instructions from its President.

55. Before his appointment as Seventh Vice-President of ORT, Whitehouse was ORT General Chairman on the following railroads: Kentucky & Indiana Terminal; Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville; Elgin, Joliet & Eastern; and Chicago and Eastern Illinois. In those capacities, Whitehouse negotiated collective bargaining agreements between ORT and those Companies, interpreted those agreements, and handled claims and grievances based upon the rules and working conditions set forth in those agreements. He also assisted ORT President Leighty, members of his staff, and officers and representatives of other nonoperating labor organizations in handling disputes submitted to the 40-Hour Week Committee in Chicago; and read, analyzed, classified and indexed more than 5000 disputes submitted to that Committee for decision, involving all nonoperating crafts and practically every railroad in the United States, as a result of the efforts of those organizations to conform individual agreements to the National 40-Hour Week Agreement.

56. As required by ORT's Constitution, Whitehouse made a printed report of his official acts and work as a Vice-President to the regular session of the Grand Division of ORT in June, 1952. That report and the testimony of Whitehouse in this case show:

(a) Since March 1, 1950, J.W. Whitehouse, as a Vice-President of ORT, has represented that Organization, on assignments from its President, in a multitude of controversies on 20 railroads, including:

    Baltimore & Ohio
    Central of Georgia
    Chesapeake and Ohio
    Chicago and North Western
    Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville
    Delaware, Lackawanna & Western
    Gulf, Mobile and Ohio
    Louisville & Nashville
    Missouri-Kansas-Texas
    Missouri Pacific
    Norfolk Southern
    Union Pacific

(b) Whitehouse performed those duties in many places, including:

State                              City
Alabama:                           Montgomery
Georgia:                           Atlanta
Illinois:                          Chicago
Indiana:                           LaFayette
Kentucky:                          Louisville
Maryland:                          Baltimore
Michigan:                          Manistee
Missouri:                          St. Louis
New York:                          New York
North Carolina:                    Wilmington;
                                   Raleigh
Pennsylvania:                      Scranton
Virginia:                          Richmond

(c) The activities of Whitehouse, as a Vice-President of ORT, covered a wide range of subjects affecting ORT, its members, and the class or craft represented by it, including:

(1) Assisting ORT President, members of his staff, and officers and representatives of other non-operating labor organizations, in handling disputes submitted to the 40-Hour Week Committee in Chicago.

(2) Assisting ORT committees with numerous problems arising from application of the 40-Hour Week rules.

(3) Assisting ORT President and his staff in preparing submissions, oral arguments and rebuttals in various disputes taken to the Board as a result of efforts of ORT to supplement individual agreements to conform to the provisions of the National 40-Hour Week Agreement.

(4) Assisting with the preparation of submissions to the Board in disputes originating on MKT and other railroads.

(5) Conferring with ORT General Chairmen and railroad officials, and conforming collective agreements to the National 40-Hour Week Agreement.

(6) Arguing ORT cases before the Board.

(7) Assisting General Chairmen in opposing the discontinuance of station agencies.

(8) Representing ORT in protecting employees involved in the Pennsylvania-Grand Trunk-Monon coordination of towers at Maynard, Indiana.

(9) Conferring with General Chairmen and with officers of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, in connection with employee displacement problems resulting from the coordination of the communication services in Chicago.

(10) Conferring with General Chairmen and railroad officials concerning jurisdictional disputes resulting from the assignment of communication work to employees not represented by ORT.

(11) Handling claims and grievances of employees, including jurisdictional disputes affecting other organizations.

(12) Attending meetings of General Chairmen's Association and engaging in ORT organization work.

(13) Participating in conferences for the consolidation, revision, and unification of the agreements between ORT and the four railroad companies which merged into the Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company.

57. J.W. Whitehouse is such a member of the ORT class as will fairly insure the adequate representation in this cause of all members of said class.

58. J.W. Whitehouse is a person whose relationship to ORT is such that it could reasonably be expected that he would give notice of this action to ORT and to its Grand Division, Subordinate Divisions, System Divisions, Local Divisions, and Local Boards of Adjustment.

59. The disputes submitted to the Board by BRC and ORT which resulted in Awards 3932, 3933, 3934, 4735 and 5014, raised this fundamental question: What class of employees (those represented by BRC or those represented by ORT) has the right to perform station clerical work. This has been a longstanding jurisdictional dispute between BRC and ORT on railroads throughout the United States which affects all members of BRC and ORT.

60. The jurisdictional dispute between BRC and ORT as to what class of employees has the right to perform station clerical work adversely affects the members and procedure of the Board, and, at the instigation of the President of BRC, resulted in the dismissal in 1942 of H.C. Kearby, ORT Board member.

61. Kearby was dismissed from the Board by majority vote of the chief executives of railroad labor unions, known as the Railway Labor Executives' Association, who select, control and discipline labor members of the Board, determine their policies as to Board procedure, and exert the power of the Association to enforce compliance with awards of the Board.

63. In subsequent litigation, ORT sought to establish its right to intervene in BRC cases before the Board. As a result of those efforts, ORT was threatened, on charges brought by BRC, with expulsion from the American Federation of Labor.

64. ORT regained its place on the Board in 1949, after subscribing to BRC's program for Board procedure and joining BRC and other labor organizations in the following agreement:

    "The Chief Executives of the organizations which
  take cases to the Third Division agreed that any
  disputes brought to that Division would be supported
  by the Labor representatives on that Division,
  provided the provisions of the agreement of the
  organization submitting the claim did sustain the
  position taken by the organization. It was further
  agreed that in the event the application of a
  sustaining award would result in a violation of the
  rules of another agreement, the second organization
  could also bring a claim to the Third Division to
  correct such violation and in the event the rules of
  the agreement involved supported the claim all of the
  Labor Members of the Board would support that claim.
  In other words the decision of the Labor Members on
  the Board would be based upon the rules in the
  agreement of the Organization bringing the claim and
  they would vote to sustain the claim if supported by
  the rules of the agreement involved or to deny the
  claim if not supported by the rules of the agreement
  involved which is the intent and purpose of the
  Railway Labor Act."

This was the same procedural program previously advocated by BRC and which the labor members of the Board followed from July, 1942 to September, 1949, during which period there was no ORT representative on the Board.

65. On October 11, 1943, BRC submitted to the Board, in Docket CL-2544, the following claims against MKT, relating to "incidental clerical work" at Altus, Oklahoma:

    "(1) The carrier (Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad
  Company; Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company of
  Texas) violated and continues to violate its several
  agreements with the organization when on May 1, 1943,
  after due notice, it failed and refused to assign to
  positions covered by the said agreements, incidental
  clerical work, then and now performed at Altus,
  Oklahoma, by the Agent-Yardmaster, the so-called
  Telegrapher-Cashier and the so-called
  Telegrapher-Clerk; and
    "(2) That the carrier (Missouri-Kansas-Texas
  Railroad Company; Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad
  Company of Texas) refused and continues to refuse to
  classify and restore the work to the scope and
  operation of the clerical agreement; and
    "(3) That the carrier (Missouri-Kansas-Texas
  Railroad Company; Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad
  Company of Texas) shall now be required by an
  ...

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.