Before Schnackenberg, Knoch, and Kiley, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: This matter is now before us on a motion of the defendants-appellees, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, et al., hereinafter called the "Brotherhood," to dismiss this appeal as moot.
The plaintiff-appellant, The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, hereinafter called the "Railroad," had appealed from a judgment of the District Court refusing to enjoin defendants from calling a strike.
The factual background of this case is fully covered in our prior opinions, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Baltimore and Ohio R. Co ., 310 F.2d 503, affd. 372 U.S. 284, and The Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen , 324 F.2d 899, and need not be set out here.
The major issue is whether a labor organization subject to the Railway Labor Act might, consistently with that Act, strike to compel a carrier to comply with certain local demands when those very demands were within the scope of other demands being handled on a national level by the same parties acting through different bargaining representatives.
The District Court found as a fact that:
27. The greater part of the issues remaining unsettled from defendant General Grievance Committee's 1956 Notice to Santa Fe are within the scope of the issues in the National Case being handled by the parties on a national level through their respective national conference committees. There are, however, some important variations.
This Court also noted, 324 F.2d 900:
In the case at bar, the pending 1956 proposals of the Committee are, for the most part, similar in subject to those matters involved in the national case.
In its motion to dismiss, the Brotherhood states:
3. That on August 28, 1963, a federal law, Public Law 88-108 was enacted and established the procedure by which an Arbitration Board made an award binding upon the parties herein. That award, insofar as relevant to employees represented by the BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, deals with crew consist, that is, the number of employees working as conductors and brakemen or as yard foremen and yard helpers.
4. The crew consist award is final and binding upon the parties hereto for a period of 2 years from January 25, 1964 and the defendants herein have recognized the binding effect of that award and have withdrawn their demand for a rule covering the consist of passenger crews.
5. All other issues contained in the socalled national rules dispute have been settled by the ratification of an agreement by all of the 5 operating organizations involved in the said dispute. The last ratification was by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen and occurred on Saturday, June 6, 1964.
6. The said agreement supersedes any demand in the 1956 Notices in conflict thereby * * *
7. Because Appellees have withdrawn their demand for a crew consist rule and because of the settlement of the national rules dispute embodied in the agreement * * *, there is no present case or controversy between the parties and the issues ...