The opinion of the court was delivered by: Perry, District Judge.
In each of these cases, brought under the Railway Labor Act,
the plaintiff railroad seeks an injunction restraining and
enjoining a strike or work stoppage by its employees on its
railroad. A temporary restraining order was entered in each case
and, on the court's motion, the two cases were consolidated for
the purpose of hearing.
It appears that for many years the two plaintiff railroads
operated under a joint-officers and office force arrangement and
that under their agreement the general office work of the two
railroads was consolidated and performed by the employees of both
railroads in the general offices of the Chicago and Western
Indiana Railroad Company. In 1962, the railroads decided to
separate their operations.
A Section 6 notice, dated December 28, 1962, and addressed by
the railroads to the General Chairman of the Brotherhood of
Railway Clerks of each railroad read in part as follows:
"At a meeting in my office on December 21st, I
outlined to you, in general terms, the changes in
official and rank and file personnel that it will be
necessary to make because the joint C&WI-Belt Railway
officers and office force arrangements that have
existed for many years will be discontinued and
separately exclusive offices to be established.
"Because the present agreements between the C&WI RR
and its clerical employees and between the Belt
Railway and its clerical employees include coverage
for certain employees in joint C&WI-Belt offices, it
is necessary that revisions be made in both
agreements to conform to the changed conditions.
"You are hereby given notice in accordance with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act of
the desire of The Belt Railway Company of Chicago and
of the Chicago and Western Indiana Railroad Company
to revise the current working agreement in effect on
each railroad in accordance with the proposal
outlined in attachment `A' and `B' hereto * * *"
Conferences which followed between the parties produced no
agreements and were terminated. On April 16, 1963, the
Brotherhood filed application for mediation which was docketed by
the National Mediation Board on May 31, 1963.
The instant complaints were filed on June 1, 1963. An answer
was filed to each complaint and at the same time, in each case,
the defendants filed a counterclaim (later an amended
counterclaim) which prayed, among other things, for a mandatory
injunction requiring plaintiff railroads to move their
headquarters from Clearing, Illinois, back to the Dearborn Street
Station in Chicago, or requiring the defendant carriers to
restore affected employees to the positions held by them prior to
their transfer or otherwise to restore the status quo.
Hearings were held by this court on plaintiffs' motions for a
preliminary injunction, and evidence having been heard and
exhibits introduced, the court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction. The order
"* * * that on condition that plaintiffs or either of
them now restore Lela M. Neville to the position held
by her at Dearborn Station on May 31, 1963, the
defendants and all persons in active concert or
participation with them are enjoined from engaging in
any strike growing out of the controversy set forth
in the Findings of Fact against plaintiffs or either
of them. This injunction shall continue until the
National Mediation Board notifies both parties in
writing that its mediatory efforts have failed
pursuant to Section 5 First of the Railway Labor Act,
or until a determination of plaintiffs' application
for a permanent injunction, whichever is earlier."
Thereafter hearings were held in the matter of plaintiffs'
application for a permanent injunction and defendants'
counterclaim with its prayer for injunction.
The court having considered (a) plaintiffs' application for a
permanent injunction and (b) defendants' counterclaim and prayer
for injunction, and having further considered the pleadings, oral
argument, testimony and documentary evidence, makes the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. Both plaintiffs and counterdefendants, hereinafter referred
to as "plaintiffs", are Illinois corporations and are carriers
within the meaning of that term as defined in the Railway Labor
Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act".
2. Defendant and counterclaimant Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes,
hereinafter referred to as "defendant", is a labor organization
representing classes of employees on both railroads under the
Act. The individual defendants and counterclaimants, hereinafter
referred to as "individual defendants", are members of the
defendant Brotherhood and fairly and adequately represent the
employees of plaintiffs represented by the Brotherhood in
collective bargaining. These employees are so numerous as to make
it impracticable to bring them all before this Court.
3. On March 25, 1938 and for many years prior thereto, the
Brotherhood was the duly designated collective bargaining agent
under the Railway Labor Act with respect to many of plaintiffs'
employees. On or about that date plaintiffs entered into an
agreement between themselves and the Brotherhood recognizing that
certain employees of each, in the comptometer and stenographic
departments in the office of the auditor, represented by the
Brotherhood, had for some time rendered services jointly to both
carriers. All such employees were assigned to the common
principal office of the two carriers in the Dearborn Street
Station in the City of Chicago. These employees, while paid by
one or the other of the carriers, performed services for both
carriers and had seniority rights with either The Belt Railway
Company of Chicago, hereinafter referred to as "Belt", or the
Chicago and Western Indiana Railroad Company, hereinafter
referred to as "Western Indiana". It was agreed that such
seniority could be exercised by employees in such departments as
to any bulletined position or in reduction or increase in force
in such departments, regardless of the carrier by whom the
employee was employed. Such arrangements remained in effect from
about March 25, 1938 and continued until on or about June 1,
1963. During such period, numerous agreements were entered into
between each of the carriers and the Brotherhood relating to
rates of pay, rules and working conditions, seniority, and other
matters affecting the employment of such employees who performed
services for both carriers.
4. The current collective bargaining agreements between each
plaintiff and the Brotherhood are dated September 1, 1949. Each
governs the hours of service and working conditions of the
classes of employees named therein. The agreement of September 1,
1949 has been amended from time to time by collective bargaining
between the parties. By such agreement as amended the parties
agreed that certain positions should be excepted from all or part
of the scope of the agreement and that certain positions should
be considered joint positions additional to the joint positions
which were the subject of the 1938 agreement.
5. Plaintiff Belt is a terminal and switching railroad
organized to provide means for classifying and transferring cars
from one railroad to another in the Chicago Switching District.
Its operations are all within Cook County, Illinois. It
interchanges traffic with 28 railroads. Prior to 1961 Belt's only
assets, other than working funds and intangibles, consisted of
rolling stock, equipment, other personal property, and trackage
rights agreements over the lines of other carriers. Most of the
trackage used was until 1961 leased from the plaintiff Western
Indiana under a lease agreement dated November 1, 1912. Under the
1912 agreement Belt was given the option of purchasing the
properties leased from Western Indiana by giving notice one year
prior to September 1, 1962. It gave notice by letter dated March
10, 1961. An application was filed with the Interstate Commerce
Commission for approval of the purchase and on August 9, 1961 the
transaction was approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission,
Finance Docket No. 21542.
The I.C.C. in granting its approval to this purchase issued a
certificate dated August 9, 1961, which granted approval to the
transaction but stated in part:
"It does not appear that railway employees will be
adversely affected; however, our approval and
authorization will be made subject to the same
conditions for the protection of employees as were
prescribed in ...