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.

TRIBBETT v. CHICAGO UNION STATION CO.

November 22, 1972

JAMES O. TRIBBETT, SR., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CHICAGO UNION STATION CO. ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause comes on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.

The basis of this action involves alleged violations of protective arrangements for employees which have been established under the Rail Passenger Service Act, 45 U.S.C. § 565, and an alleged failure to follow the opinion and award rendered by arbitration. The named plaintiffs are eleven former Railway Terminal employees of the Chicago Union Station Company whose jobs were terminated by the advent of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) on or about May 1, 1971. The defendants are: the Chicago Union Station Co., hereinafter CUS; D.M. Baughman, Manager of CUS; the Burlington Northern Inc.; and other Rail Transportation Companies, the identities of which are not presently known.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges jurisdiction pursuant to the Railway Labor Act, Section 3, First (p), 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (p). The plaintiffs seek a mandatory injunction order directing defendants CUS and D.M. Baughman to honor Referee Dolnick's Opinion and Award through the payment of the approximate sum of $16,832 to each of the named plaintiffs, which represents separation pay. The plaintiffs also seek the cost of maintaining this action.

The instant cause of action arose from the following factual setting:

  1.  The United States Congress, as a result of
      the decline in passenger service, enacted
      Public Law 91-518, now 45 U.S.C.A. § 501, et
      seq., which has the stated purpose of forming a
      rail passenger corporation for providing
      modern, efficient intercity rail passenger
      service.
  2.  Section 543 of the Act provides that a
      corporation for profit be formed to provide
      intercity passenger service. It was not to be
      an agency or establishment of the United
      States Government.
  3.  Section 561 of the Act states that on or
      before May 1, 1971, the corporation is
      authorized to contract with railroads to
      relieve them of their responsibilities for
      providing intercity rail passenger service.
  4.  Section 565 of the Act provides for
      protective arrangements for employees who may
      be affected by discontinuances of intercity
      rail passenger service.
  5.  The National Railroad Passenger Corporation,
      hereinafter referred to as Amtrak, was to set
      up a basic rail system, and railroads
      contracting with it were allowed to
      discontinue their own passenger service on
      May 1, 1971. Thereafter, pursuant to the
      contract, the railroads were to provide to
      Amtrak, for a fee, the servicing and
      operating of the passenger trains.
  7.  As required by § 565(b) of the Act, there
      was attached to the Amtrak Agreement an
      Appendix C-1. This Appendix provided
      protection for railroad workers who were
      affected by the May 1, 1971 changes, and the
      start-up of Amtrak. Also as required by § 565,
      this Appendix C-1 was certified by the
      Secretary of Labor that the labor protective
      provisions contained therein afforded affected
      employees fair and equitable protection by the
      railroads.
  8.  On May 1, 1971, Amtrak operations commenced
      out of CUS and certain passenger trains were
      discontinued and the handling of mail was
      changed on or about that date, affecting the
      employment status of certain employees,
      including the named plaintiffs in this
      action, most of whom had been mail handlers.
  9.  In May or June of 1971, the plaintiffs herein
      were offered employment by the Burlington
      Northern and they refused same.*fn1
  10. Subsequent to May 1, disputes arose between
      CUS employees and CUS regarding their
      employment status and rights under the Amtrak
      Agreement, Appendix C-1. On May 18, 1971, the
      Union representing the CUS employees (the
      Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship
      Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station
      Employees, hereinafter referred to as the
      BRAC) by telegram, requested the National
      Mediation Board in Washington D.C., to
      appoint a neutral referee as provided in
      Article 1, Sec. 4(A) of Appendix C-1 of ...

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.