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

January 13, 1967

Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Plaintiff
v.
Transport Workers Union Of America, AFL-CIO et al., Defendants


Van Dusen, District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: VAN DUSEN

VAN DUSEN, District Judge.

The basic cause of this labor dispute is the contention of defendant TWU that the abolition of certain jobs at the plaintiff's Altoona shops, resulting in the placing of over 300 *fn1" TWU members on furlough on January 11, would not have been necessary if plaintiff had not contracted its work out to outside contractors (N.T. 11 & pp. 28-31 and 39-40 of Kaelin deposition, being Document 16), and the frank statement of defendant TWU that it may not be able to control the furloughed employees from violating the collective bargaining agreements (see Exhibit P-1), so that picketing and disruption of plaintiff's railroad operations are possible (N.T. 11-12).

 Paragraphs 1-5, 7, 8, 10 and 14-19 of Plaintiff's Requests for Findings of Fact, which defendants agree are accurate statements of fact, establish that (a) plaintiff is an interstate railroad which is an integral part of the national railway system, transporting many thousands of passengers (over 73,000 - see N.T. 40) to and from Philadelphia daily, (b) defendant TWU is a labor union, which represents, for the purposes of the Railway Labor Act, approximately 10,000 of plaintiff's employees, (c) Local 2013 is TWU's railroad local in the Philadelphia area and it is truly and fairly representative of the other railroad local unions of TWU, including Local 2017, which represents the employees in the plaintiff's Altoona Works, (d) the individual defendants are either international executive officers of TWU or officers of Local 2013, and (e) there are in effect collectively bargained agreements, concluded under the Railway Labor Act between plaintiff and TWU, governing rates of pay, rules and working conditions for the above 10,000 employees (see Exhibit P-1). These collective bargaining agreements contain provisions relating to reduction in forces employed by plaintiff and providing for the abolishment of positions, as well as grievance procedures for the processing of any disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the agreements. *fn2"

 On or about January 5, 1967, plaintiff, acting in accordance with the applicable agreements, caused notices to be posted advising of the abolishment of certain positions at the Altoona Works in Altoona, Pennsylvania, effective on or about January 12, 1967. *fn3"

 
"Well, if this is the case, you can expect real trouble. At the end of next week we are in a strike situation with the PTC, we have the same problem with the Red Arrow, we might as well bring the Pennsylvania into this and have a real show out of it."

 No grievances or other arbitration machinery has been invoked by the TWU under the collective bargaining contract (N.T. 61-62).

 On January 5, 1967, Mr. Kaelin invited the press to a conference at the Franklin Motor Inn in Philadelphia, at which the President and Vice President of Local 2017 were present. These officers of Local 2017 told Mr. Kaelin that the 300 furloughed workers might organize themselves into a band of pickets and might develop into traveling squads establishing picket lines on plaintiff's railroad from New York to St. Louis (pp. 42-46 of Document 16). At that time, Mr. Kaelin suggested the furloughed men picket the executive offices of plaintiff at Six Penn Center Plaza, Philadelphia. Mr. Kaelin used this language when his deposition was taken on January 10 (pp. 52-53):

 
"My answer at the conference was that we have a moral right to adhere to the agreement. We are a responsible organization and we will; and it is not our intention to stymie the Railroad in any way with the exception that we will leave no stone unturned, that would not bother the Railroad, to let the people know of how the Railroad is treating the workers."

 Although Mr. Kaelin advised the members of the Altoona Works Local (2017) at a meeting on January 11 not to have any strike or work stoppage (N.T. 89), the members of that Local advocated that the leaders of TWU should tear up "the injunctions like Mike Quill did in New York" (N.T. 92-93).

 The adverse effects of a work stoppage on the plaintiff railroad at this time, when a strike of the Philadelphia transit system is imminent, are described in the abovementioned paragraphs 14-19 *fn5" of Plaintiff's Requests for Findings (Document 17). Plaintiff's General Manager of Transportation testified as follows (N.T. 38):

 
"'A When there is any announcement of a strike threat affecting the movement on our railroad, we get a number of calls from shippers, particularly traffic managers of large companies and people handling produce - also, importers and exporters where they have cars that are scheduled or sailings on export movement of ships - and this builds up as you get nearer to the time of the strike until you usually get - I usually acquire a calling list and they will check with me every day on whether there have been new developments and ask me to call them if there is a settlement.

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.