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.

PENNSYLVANIA R.R. CO. v. TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION

May 28, 1960

PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C.I.O., Michael J. Quill, Eugene Attreed, Andrew Kaelin, C. A. Quigley, Local 2013 of United Railroad Workers Division of Transport Workers Union of America, C.I.O., in their own right and as representative of other local unions of Transport Workers Union of America, C.I.O. and as representative of Transport Workers Union of America, C.I.O., John W. Mellon, Jr., Edward B. Quigley, J. E. Whitehead, V. J. Elliott, E. D. Halstead, individually, as officers of Local 2013 and as representatives of the members of Transport Workers Union of America, C.I.O., employed by Plaintiff



The opinion of the court was delivered by: DUSEN

The plaintiff corporation has its principal office in this District, operates a railroad with 10,000 miles of line in interstate commerce in thirteen states and the District of Columbia, carried 44 billion ton miles of freight in 1959 consisting of perishable commodities, military supplies, foods, livestock, grain, minerals and finished goods, and transports express, passengers and mail (N.T. 28-30). Defendant Transport Workers Union, A.F.L.-C.I.O. (hereinafter called 'T.W.U.') is a labor union which represents, for the purpose of the Railway Labor Act, 15,540 of plaintiff's employees, being those crafts or classes of persons employed by plaintiff known as Boilermakers, Electricians, Carmen (including Coach Cleaners), Car Inspectors, Molders (including Melters and Coremakers), their helpers and apprentices, powerhouse employees and rail shop laborers; and said defendant is doing business in the Judicial District of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Defendant Michael J. Quill is International President of defendant T.W.U. and the principal executive officer of said defendant. Defendant Eugene Attreed is Director of the United Railroad Workers Division and Vice-President of defendant T.W.U. Defendant Andrew Kaelin is a Vice-President and Coordinator of defendant T.W.U. and the principal international officer representing defendants T.W.U. and Quill in this District. Defendant C. A. Quigley is the International Representative of defendants T.W.U. and Quill in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, with responsibility for all activities of said defendants in the Philadelphia Region of plaintiff. Defendant Local 2013 is an unincorporated Association and a local union of defendant T.W.U.'s United Railroad Workers Division within the territorial limits of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Defendant Local 2013 is doing business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Defendant John W. Mellon, Jr. is President of defendant Local 2013 and the principal executive officer and collective bargaining representative of said Local in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Defendant Mellon acts for defendant Local 2013 in enforcing the schedule of rules and working conditions and in matters of grievance adjustments on plaintiff's system in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Defendant Edward B. Quigley is a member and Executive Vice-President of defendant Local 2013. Defendant J. E. Whitehead is a member and Vice President-Freight Carman of defendant Local 2013. Defendant V. J. Elliott is a member and Secretary-Treasurer of defendant Local 2013. Defendant E. D. Halstead is a member and Recording Secretary of defendant Local 2013. (N.T. 56-58.)

Each of the individual defendants is sued in his own right and as an officer of the two labor unions mentioned above. The officers of Local 2013 are sued as representatives of the members of Transport Workers Union of America, C.I.O., employed by plaintiff. Paragraph 5 of the Complaint contains these two sentences:

 'Defendant Local 2013 is truly and fairly representative of the other local unions of defendant T.W.U., and of defendant T.W.U. itself, and the interest of all members, subordinate locals and defendant T.W.U. will be adequately represented in the premises by said defendant Local. Defendant Local 2013 is sued in its own right and as representative of the membership of the subordinate locals and of the T.W.U. itself.'

 There are presently in effect collectively bargained labor agreements, concluded in accordance with and under the terms of the Railway Labor Act, between the plaintiff and defendant T.W.U., the latter acting as the representative of the classes or crafts of employees referred to above, governing rates of pay, rules and working conditions of the said crafts or classes of employees, and providing a method of handling disputes growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of the said agreement. See Exhibits P-1 to P-1E, inclusive, particularly P-1A and P-1B.

 Under said agreements, a grievance procedure has been established whereby disputes, grievances or claims are presented first to the aggrieved employee's foreman, then to plaintiff's Superintendent-Personnel and then to plaintiff's Manager-Labor Relations. Failing settlement at the levels indicated, the grievance then goes to a System Board of Adjustment, established pursuant to the provisions of § 3, Second, of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 153, Second, which is implemented by a written agreement between the parties (Exhibit P-1B) setting up a Board of four members, two representing each side. If the Board cannot reach a decision, the dispute then goes to a neutral referee selected by the Board; if the Board cannot agree on a neutral referee, he shall be designated by the National Mediation Board at the request of any two members of the Board, and his decision shall be final and binding.

 The evidence discloses these disputes existed between plaintiff and its employees who were members of T.W.U. on May 16, 1960, the Monday of the week in which numerous work stoppages and picketing were conducted by such employees:

 A. Scope Rules Dispute.

 As a result of a notice served by the T.W.U. on plaintiff in June 1957 under § 6 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C.A. § 156), stating a desire to change the regulations regarding advance notice of job abolishments, etc., mediation has been going on in this dispute ever since that date in accordance with the terms of the Railway Labor Act and agreement of the parties (N.T. 62 ff.). Initially, this proceeding was assigned number E134 by the National Mediation Board (N.T. 166). Mediation was recessed from November 1957 to January 1958 to permit T.W.U. to confer with System Federation (a union representing these three mechanical crafts: blacksmiths, machinists and sheet metal workers) and present a joint proposal on a scope rule, a work-classification rule, and a rule concerning contracting to outside concerns of work to be done on railroad property (N.T. 68 & 409). On August 1, 1958, the unions presented separate proposals for complete revision of their collective bargaining agreements. Counter-proposals were submitted by plaintiff, but in February 1959, the unions suggested that mediation be resumed (N.T. 69-70). Plaintiff agreed and the case was redesignated as number A5949 by the National Mediation Board (N.T. 70). On September 23, 1959, the unions requested the Mediation Board to terminate its services and that Board suggested arbitration. On November 25, 1959, all three parties executed a written agreement to submit this dispute to a special, one-man Board of Adjustment (N.T. 71) called 'a neutral person' (Exhibit P-3). Paragraph 4 of this agreement provided:

 '4. The Organizations and the Carrier will maintain the status quo until 30 days after submission to the parties of the recommendations.'

 The neutral person (Francis J. Robertson) filed his report on May 4, 1960, having held hearings and conducted conciliation conferences in the meantime (N.T. 71-73 & 423-4). Parts of this report were unacceptable to both parties, but plaintiff was willing to accept it, 'taking the bad with the good,' but the unions refused to agree to 26 of the recommendations (N.T. 74). At the final meeting on May 11 between plaintiff and the unions at which the report was discussed, the unions delivered to plaintiff a letter stating that a strike would take place on June 6, 1960 (Exhibit P-4). *fn1" This was the third definite strike threat T.W.U. had issued since June 1957 during the course of these negotiations. *fn2" This strike had been authorized by the Council of Presidents of T.W.U.'s locals on May 3 or 4, 1960, at Pittsburgh (N.T. 438-9). Immediately after these Pittsburgh meetings, defendants Quill and Attreed and Mr. Frank Sheehan, International Director of Organization of T.W.U. (N.T. 430), started on a tour of T.W.U. locals whose members are employees of plaintiff in order to report to the locals on the Robertson report of May 4, 1960 (N.T. 423-4). From May 5 to May 7, these officers of defendant T.W.U. reported to locals at Conway, Pa., Pitcairn, Pa., and Pittsburgh, Pa. From May 9 to 11, they discussed the Robertson report with plaintiff in Philadelphia (N.T. 443). Defendants Quill and Attreed and Mr. Sheehan reported to the Pittsburgh local on May 11 and to the Harrisburg local on May 12. On May 13, they reported to the Altoona locals (2007 and 2017). Prior to this meeting, defendant Quill made a TV broadcast in which he said (P-26 at p. 2; cf. N.T. 330ff., 428-9, 444-5 and 646ff.):

 'Tonight we will decide whether we wait until June 6th or take Mr. Symes, Chairman of the Board of The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, at his word and jump the gun a little sooner. This decision cannot be made by me or our officials -- this decision must be made by you, the members of the organization whom we expect to meet in twenty or twenty-five minutes in the Venetian Gardens.'

 During the meeting of the locals at the Venetian Gardens immediately after this TV broadcast, Mr. Quill said (N.T. 669 and p. 3 of P-26):

 'We feel now is the time to act. We would ask for clarification from Mr. Symes on this question, and failing that clarification we will call your presidents together in Philadelphia or Altoona or Pittsburgh, and then we will not mark time until midnight, June the 6th. We will give it to them immediately right across the system and in the conference talks. (Applause). We are on top of this thing; let's stick to it. And once and for all, if we are forced to fight the system, we will strike the system, and we will not be satisfied with the scope clause, before we come back, we will have to settle the company 5 cents an hour wage demand, the pensions, the other working conditions, and the job security that is long, long overdue. Goodnight, and God bless you, one and all.'

 Mr. Fassano, Vice President in Charge of Grievances, Local 2017, personally broadcast from a sound-truck at the entrances to plaintiff's Altoona shops about noon on May 13 a message urging all of plaintiff's employees at the Altoona shops to attend the above ...


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.