The opinion of the court was delivered by: WOOD
1. Plaintiff, The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a carrier operating in interstate and intrastate commerce in thirteen states and the District of Columbia, operates a system which is an integral part of the national railway system and connects and interchanges freight and passengers with other railroads at many points in the United States.
2. Defendant, Transport Workers Union of America, C.I.O., is a labor union and an unincorporated association which represents, for the purpose of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., approximately 11,000 of plaintiff's employees.
3. Defendants, Michael J. Quill, Eugene Attreed and Andrew Kaelin are international executive officers of the defendant Transport Workers Union of America and defendant C. A. Quigley is the International Representative of defendants Quill and Transport Workers Union of America in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
4. Defendant, Local 2013 of United Railroad Workers of Transport Workers of America, A.F.L.-C.I.O. represents, for the purpose of the Railway Labor Act, certain of plaintiff's employees and is doing business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Defendants John W. Mellon, Jr., Edward B. Quigley, W. S. Usner, V. J. Elliott, E. D. Halstead, H. T. Flood, W. Friel, A. Fanucchi, W. W. Wilson are the executive officers of this defendant union.
5. The interests of all of the various local unions of the Transport Workers Union of America and all of the membership of the TWU will be adequately represented in the premises by the defendants.
6. There are presently in effect collectively bargained labor agreements, concluded in accordance with and under the terms of the Railway Labor Act, between plaintiff and defendant union, the latter acting as the representatives of some of plaintiff's employees, which agreements govern the rates of pay, rules and working conditions of some of plaintiff's employees.
7. On August 1, 1958, defendant TWU submitted to plaintiff proposals requesting changes in the provisions of the then existing collective bargaining agreement. Among these proposals was a request to eliminate Regulation 2-A-4 and to include a regulation which subsequently became numbered as Regulation 2-A-1(e).
8. Defendant TWU's proposals were discussed with plaintiff and, prior to the strike of September 1, 1960, plaintiff and defendant TWU agreed to a modification of Regulation 2-A-4 and also agreed to include, in substance, defendant TWU's proposal as Regulation 2-A-1(e).
9. The strike by defendant TWU against plaintiff in September, 1960, was settled on September 12, 1960 by the execution of a collective bargaining agreement which was to become effective on October 15, 1960. Such agreement included Regulation 2-A-4, as modified, and Regulation 2-A-1(e) in the form agreed to by the plaintiff and defendant TWU prior to the strike of September, 1960.
10. The agreement effective October 15, 1960 provides that it constitutes full and complete settlement of numerous matters, including defendant TWU's proposal of August 1, 1958.
12. Subsequent to October 15, 1960, a disagreement arose between plaintiff and defendant TWU concerning the interpretation and application of Regulations 2-A-4 and 2-A-1(e).
13. Plaintiff and defendant TWU were unable to resolve their disagreement, and accordingly, they agreed to submit the disputes to an impartial arbitrator for final and binding decision pursuant to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act. Such agreement was reduced to ...