Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

SHIPLEY v. PITTSBURGH & L.E.R. CO.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


March 8, 1949

SHIPLEY et al.
v.
PITTSBURGH & L.E.R. CO.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: GOURLEY

This is an action on collective bargaining agreements negotiated and executed by the employees' representatives of The Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company with said Company. It presents for decision novel and important questions arising out of said contracts which were negotiated and executed in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, June 7, 1934, c. 426, 48 Stat. 926, June 21, 1934, c. 691, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1185, June 25, 1936, c. 804, 49 Stat. 1921, Aug. 13, 1940, c. 664, Secs. 2, 3, 54 Stat. 785, 786, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.

The contracts or bargaining agreements which are involved in this proceeding were negotiated and executed on January 12, 1928 and November 17, 1936. The plaintiff employees were represented by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (BRT), and the Order of Railway Conductors (ORC) in the 1928 Contract, and the Order of Railway Conductors in the 1936 Contract.

 Under the Railway Labor Act which sets up the procedure and method by which an employee of a carrier, who is aggrieved concerning his labor relations, may submit the grievance to the Railroad Adjustment Board, the remedy afforded is not exclusive and the employee may bring suit at law to settle a dispute without first submitting the controversy to the Board. 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. There is nothing in the Act which purports to take away from the courts the jurisdiction to determine a controversy or to make an administrative finding of the Board a prerequisite to filing a suit in court. Kelly v. Nashville C. & St. L.R., D.C., 75 F.Supp. 737; Adams et al. v. New York C. & St. L.R. Co., 7 Cir., 121 F.2d 808, 810; Moore v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 312 U.S. 630, 62 S. Ct. 754, 85 L. Ed. 1089; Beeler v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 10 Cir., 169 F.2d 557; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Olive, 9 Cir., 156 F.2d 737.

 The ultimate issues relate to:

 (a) The interpretation and construction of the 1928 and 1936 Contracts.

 (b) The authority of the collective bargaining representative (BRT) to compromise or settle accrued claims of the plaintiffs who --

 (1) Were members of the collective bargaining representative and

 (2) were not members of the collective bargaining representative.

 Parties to Suit

 Plaintiffs

 The plaintiffs are 133 conductors (also known as yard foremen) and brakemen (also known as helpers) who are and for a long time have been employees of The Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, defendant. They are called, generally in railroad parlance, 'trainmen.'

 The major question involved relates to whether the plaintiffs were or were not entitled to extra pay from defendant at the rate of an additional day for each day in which the plaintiffs coupled air hose at points where air or car inspectors were available. The rights of action of the plaintiffs are based upon either, or both, of two certain written collective bargaining or employment contracts which contain the same provisions as to the basic claims of the plaintiffs.

 (a) Claims of three of the plaintiffs are based exclusively upon a contract executed in 1936 by the defendant railroad with the Order of Railway Conductors, the certified bargaining agent of the conductors during the entire period covered by this suit.

 (b) Claims of eighty-seven of the plaintiffs are based upon a contract made in 1928 by the defendant corporation with the Order of Railway Conductors and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.

 (c) Twenty of the plaintiffs were conductors who were engaged partly in road work and partly in yard work, and thus their claims are in part under one of the said contracts and in part under the other.

 (d) Twenty-three of the plaintiffs were conductors who were engaged partly in yard work and partly on work trains (that being a class of road work), so that those twenty-three plaintiffs -- as do the twenty plaintiffs last above mentioned -- claim in part under one of said contracts and in part under the other. A summary of the numbers of the foregoing groups is as follows: Number of Group Plaintiffs Road service exclusively, all claims under the 1936 contract 3 Yard service exclusively, all claims under the 1928 contract 87 Both road and yard service, claims under both contracts 20 Yard service and work train (type of road service), claims under both contracts 23 Total number of plfs. 133

19490308

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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