another situation equally applicable here said:
'The defendant lodges were also aware, or, upon the slightest reflection, should have realized, that it was impossible under the existing circumstances for all their desires to be satisfied. When there are only five apples for six people, it is impossible for each person to receive a whole apple. * * *.'
The complaint alleges that the revised seniority agreement is in violation of the established law and policy of Brotherhood but it does not cite any provision of the Brotherhood's Constitution which is alleged to be violated.
The 1955 agreement was entered into on behalf of Brotherhood by its Pennsylvania Railroad System Board of Adjustment pursuant to Section 14(a) of the 'Protective Laws of the Brotherhood,' (page 105) which said Protective Laws are properly before the Court and which provide:
'It shall be the duty of Boards of Adjustment, and the said Boards are hereby authorized, when acting in conformity with the Constitution and Protective Laws of the Brotherhood, and the by-laws of the Boards of Adjustment, to negotiate, maintain, revise, modify, adjust and interpret the agreements establishing and covering wages, working conditions and other employment relations in their respective jurisdiction.'
The complaint cites only an alleged resolution of Brotherhood Conventions. This resolution was supplied by Brotherhood, -- it was not a part of the complaint. A reading of the resolution clearly shows that it had only to do with transfers, consolidations, or abandonments of physical facilities. There are none such involved here. The revised seniority agreement in the instant case grew out of the internal reorganization by Railroad of its own management structure, which obviously made necessary a revamping of the entire seniority structure.
In Kent v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 2 Cir., 204 F.2d 263, 266 in sustaining as reasonable an order of the Civil Aeronautics Board directing the 'dovetailing' of seniority lists of American Overseas Airlines and Pan American, upon the merger of those two carriers, contrary to the contentions of Pan American employees that the American Overseas Airlines employees should all go to the bottom of the combined list as new employees, the court said, inter alia:
'The paramount public interest required that due consideration be given conflicting seniority interests of both groups of these engineers. The Board has done that with meticulous care and, far from acting in an arbitrary and capricious way, has provided a method which fairly distributes the burdens and the benefits. * * *.'
The allegation in the complaint that the revised seniority agreement was entered into without consultation with or notice to plaintiffs and their local lodge would not, even if true, affect in the slightest the validity of the agreement. The Brotherhood is the duly authorized representative under the Railway Labor Act to negotiate agreements which the Railroad on behalf of plaintiffs and other carrier employees. To give cognizance to any such claim would be completely disruptive of the intent, purpose and scope of the Act. In this connection it is significant that under Section 7 of the Brotherhood's Protective Laws the System Board, the contracting unit on behalf of the employees, is made up of representatives from the various Protective Committees of each lodge, which in turn are chosen from members of the lodge. It would therefore seem that under the Brotherhood's Protective Laws the interests of the individual employees are amply protected.
Finally, it is clear that plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies within the Brotherhood and under their collective bargaining contract. The law in Pennsylvania is well established that members of a labor organization may not seek relief in the courts against their union until they have exhausted all remedies available to them within the union to satisfy their grievance.
Article 5, Section 2(b) of the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Brotherhood reads as follows:
'(b) No officer, member or subordinate unit of this Brotherhood may resort to any Court of Law or Equity or other civil authority either as parties plaintiff or for the purpose of securing an opinion or decision in connection with any alleged grievance or wrong concerning any case in controversy arising within the organization or under its law, until such officer, member or subordinate unit first shall have exhausted all remedies by appeal or otherwise provided herein for the settlement and disposition of such alleged rights, grievances or wrongs.'
Brotherhood admits that the complaint correctly sets forth the appellate procedure available to plaintiffs under the governing laws of Brotherhood for relief within the organization in Paragraph 19, which reads as follows:
'19. Under the Constitution, By-Laws, Statutes, rules and regulations of the Grand Lodge, the order of appeal within the Grand Lodge from grievances of the kind herein set forth are as follows: To the Division or District Chairman, thence to the General Chairman, thence to the Board of Adjustment, thence to the Grand President and from the decision of the Grand President to the Grand Executive Council.'
The complaint clearly discloses that this internal procedure has not been followed.
Plaintiffs set up as the reason for their failure to utilize the procedures that an appeal had been submitted to the union president and that he had refused to render a decision.
Article 16, Section 2(a) of the Brotherhood Constitution reads as follows:
'Section 2. (a) Between Conventions all executive and judicial power of the Grand Lodge -- except as the law provides in defining duties of the Grand Lodge officers, the Finance Committee, Board of Trustees and the Board of Advocates, the handling of referendum and recall and special conventions -- shall be vested in the Grand Executive Council.'
Plaintiffs cite nothing in the Brotherhood governing laws which prevent their recourse to the Grand Executive Council for such help as they feel they need regardless of the action or the inaction of the President.
As between Railroad and Brotherhood, Railroad in its answer sets forth at large that portion of the basic collective bargaining agreement here involved, setting forth a procedure for the handling of protests, claims and grievances, with ultimate resort to the National Railroad Adjustment Board, a Federal Agency cerated by the Railway Labor Act to hear and determine such grievances.
Colbert v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, supra, presented a situation almost identical to the instant case. There, as will be noted from the above quotation, the court sustained the action of the District Court in dismissing the complaint which sought a decree declaring the provision for merged seniority invalid and enjoining its enforcement.
The complaint fails to allege facts to support any charges of Constitutional or statutory discrimination or any facts to show that Brotherhood and Railroad did not in complete good faith effect the changes in seniority districts and seniority standing necessitated by Railroad's system-wide reorganization.
The defendants are clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the undisputed facts appearing in the pleadings.