Document: 385 U.S. 157 87 S.Ct. 369 17 L.Ed.2d 264 TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES UNION, Petitioner,v.UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. No. 28. Argued Oct. 19, 1966. Decided Dec. 5, Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1967. See 1032, 737. Milton Kramer, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. James A. Wilcox, Omaha, Neb., respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Transportation - Communication Employees Union, petitioner, is bargaining representative a group railroad employees commonly known as 'Telegraphers.' Prior to 1952 these telegraphers were assigned duty sending, by telegraph, way bills, manifests and orders prepared clerks, members brotherhood Railway Clerks. In 1952, however, respondent here, Union Pacific Railroad Company, installed IBM machines which resulted in radical change work-load clerks. When clerical work previously done clerks manually performed on machines, automatically perform communications functions telegraphers. As result, railroad's need was practically eliminated operation clerks' union. This case arises out dispute over assignment jobs The telegraphers' union, claiming its under collective agreement, protested and, due course, referred claim Adjustment Board authorized § 3 First (i) Labor Act.1 Notice referral given which, pursuant an understanding with other labor unions, declined participate this proceeding ground that it had no interest matter but stated readiness file like before protect should any their be threatened.2 then heard decided without considering liability contract them, concluded entitled contract, ordered pay who been idle because union brought action United States District Court enforce Board's award (p) Act. That court dismissed indispensable party, telegraphers, though opportunity, refused make party. 231 F.Supp. 33. Affirming dismissal, Appeals pointed failed carry exclusive jurisdictional responsibility decide entire relation conflicting claims two unions respective contracts have members.3 We granted certiorari order settle doubts about whether must exercise jurisdiction disputes single all disputant present. Cf. Whitehouse v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 349 366, 371—372, 75 845, 849, 99 L.Ed. 1155. hold must. I. 2 Petitioner contends entirely appropriate resolve assignments only one participates union's employer considered. contention rests premise agreements are governed same common-law principles control private between parties. On basis quite naturally assumed Thus, argued each agreement thing apart from others language such considered isolation others. reject line reasoning. A not ordinary purchase goods services, nor old concepts, contracts. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Livingston, 376 543, 550, 84 909, 914, 11 898; cf. Steele Louisville N.R. 323 192, 65 226, 89 173. '* * (I)t generalized code govern myriad cases draftsmen cannot wholly anticipate. covers whole employment relationship. It calls into being new common law—the law particular industry or plant.' Steelworkers America Warrior Gulf Nav. 363 574, 578—579, 80 1347, 1351, 4 1409. interpret necessary consider scope related agreements, well practice, usage custom pertaining agreements. particularly true when resorted purpose settling assignments. There kinds disputes. Both essentially competing merely more right job existed at time made. situation would highly unlikely could construed giving paid job. But us now where Here, made properly other, automation has there job, different either former expressly contracted unions. Although can may nonassigned obligates idleness attributable elimination automation. does mean both can, separate Board, once submitted it, postpone determining future. By first ordering later, proceeding, ever thus prejudicing rights abdicates dispute. Yet precisely kind merry-go-round petitioner envisaged Act, procedure certainly 'provide prompt orderly settlement *,' established. 2(5). (Emphasis supplied.) II. 5 railroad, employees, public, whose benefits Act written, fair, expeditious hearing nature. And we said uncertain do so. Order Conductors Pitney, 326 561, 66 322, 90 318, 20 years ago. concerned certain jobs—members conductors' trainmen's contract. district court, charge bankruptcy, entered judgment favor conductors. reversed, holding vested power controversy did bring members, say this: 6 'We seen reach final decision question terms O.R.C.'s record shows, interpretation involves than mere construction 'document' meaning words position. For read light B.R.T. since parties seek support evidence usage, practice custom, too taken account understood. factual intricate technical. An agency especially competent specifically designated deal created Congress.' Id., 566—567, 325. 7 Four after Pitney Slocum Delaware, L. W.R. 339 239, 70 577, 94 795. state interpreted here relying said: 8 held, remarkably similar now, Federal equitable discretion 'to adjudicate involving employee accredited agents *.' Our 'should contracts' left determination congressionally peculiarly field. 567—568, page 325, 318. 243—244, 579. 9 adhere our holdings hear determine this. also Southern 255, 585, 811. argues barred 1155, Slocum. some interpretation, might justify inference against fully proceeding. analysis primary frustrated premature judicial action. Carey Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 375 261, 265—266, 401, 405, 406, 320. decline expand beyond actual holding. 10 jurisdiction, admits, relates (j) provides 'the several divisions shall give notice hearings carrier carriers involved them.' (j). Certainly 'involved' Without presence, unless chooses default surrender neither courts below contends, decide, creates another now. sustained, back payments compelled continue sets workers—one set idle. National Relations Radio Television Broadcast Engineers, 364 573, 582—583, 81 330, 335, 336, 302, experience sense, handle satisfactory manner affirm party members. cause remanded directions remand Board.4 directed again opportunity heard, accepts upon consideration 'in (contracts) railroad' overall dispute, 'evidence custom' pertinent supra, 567, order, based thorough chance will enforceable courts. so ordered. 12 Judgment affirmed directions. 13 STEWART, whom BRENNAN joins, concurring. 14 Until dealt totally unrelated To take piecemeal approach underlying causes invites inconsistent awards, ignores industrial context disputed framed implemented. 15 aptly illustrates why judge one-half problem while closing eyes half. provisions drawn technological progress telescoped stations one. explicitly provide change. designed cover extended period time, sufficiently general allow flexibility changing circumstances.* 16 justice full measure circumstances. deference decisions, employ decision-making technique fair realities. using simple bilateral defaults duties. Cox, Legal Nature Collective Bargaining Agreements, 57 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 22—23, 26—27 (1958); Note, Yale L.J. 877, 889—890 (1966). Only today directs kind. detract fulfill tasks. if advanced honor bound just lost multilateral rem Freeman, Law Judgments §§ 1524—1526 (5th ed. 1925). 18 Since use procedures informed respondent, I concur 19 FORTAS, THE CHIEF JUSTICE dissenting. carrier, (or compensatory lieu thereof) unilaterally allotted complained Board. held that, jobs, senior telegrapher idled 21 holds enforced adjudicated instead. Court's states belong jobs. 22 dissent. acted statute commands. discuss, limited adjudications grievances railroad. compel conversion complaint three-party 'settle dispute.' refuse something require empower do. emphatically submit devise impose management labor, proposition, making debut field railway law, 'only job.' nothing precedents permits justifies peremptory foray people's business. 23 found provision 44 Stat. 577 (1926), amended, 45 U.S.C. 151—188 (as amended June 20, 1966, 208). adverts forth purposes (including, relating Mediation creating duties employees—none defines powers Board). Section number purposes, among appears phrase quoted part Court: '(4) concerning rates pay, rules, working conditions; (5) growing application covering conditions.' extent relate they define powers. defined begs 'settlement disputes' disregards qualifying itself, specific enumeration (i). 24 Ultimately, rest 'principle' creates. proposition—unknown until day—is whatever parties' provides, observe rule even automation,' conclude 'that *' controlling principle asserts error bind well. Throughout stresses 'job' member Obviously person actually job; fact, is—without articulation premise—assuming featherbedding forbidden natural type mandate overrides prohibition. From novel derives conclusion enforceable. 25 propositions: initiated dispute' (but both) title predilection man sensible, contrary contract; know Constitution statutes compels it. dictate—and what doing—that accordance subordinated theory. own views. anti-featherbedding admirable theory, depending one's preconceptions point view. exist respectfully suggest position assess desirability innovation. If declared unlawful, least, problems esoteric volatile subject edict. They legislature. Certainly, invade integrity legislate result considers desirable 'orderly.' 26 last Term peculiar institutions sustained validity 'full-crew' statutes. These statutes, direct contrast assumes, effect sometimes requireing railroads hire man, claims, others, Congress preempted Brotherhood Locomotive Engineers Chicago, R.I. P.R. 382 423, 86 594, 501 Such 'sensitive touchy problem' (id., 430, 597), wisely decided, absence clear congressional command. hard comprehend if, finds, itself (presumably enactment 1926) overriding forbids laws present problem, all, equally touchy,' yet disclose authority dictating treatment. 27 decisions assistance. refers 318 (1946). candidly 'we All determined initially bankruptcy reorganization proceedings. passage issue—the contract—had trainmen. Indeed, quotation recalls basic ignores: 'intricate technical' relations, including Court, displace authority—certainly drastic imposition eliminate featherbedding. 28 is, essential note absolutely reason believe follow here. majority concurring opinions assume fact violated construe custom. Thus characterizes proceedings (the telegraphers') (was) considered.' concurrence 'Until clerks,' used 'a analysis' prevented arriving 'an respondent.' am unable find suggestions refusing evidentiary value.1 29 makes possibly contractual question, currently performing observed, respect aspect award, 'there unanimity proposition where, Scope Rule lists positions instead delineating work, look exclusively reserved persons covered Agreement.' 30 substance shows central awareness teletype printers receivers. function transmitting receiving messages on-line offices. prior installation operators printer operators. However, apparently convenience, IBM-complex operated receivers operating 'been past clerks.' 31 Furthermore, correct stating proper broad view construing remedy, second Instead, remands case, third never invoked become gloss statute, addition apply substantive forbidding 32 Actually, relevant practice. matters outside issues statute. despite violated, real point—as respondent's—is should, union—and awarding other. 33 795 (1950). assistance whatever. filed declaratory joined defendants. unions' field.' 244, 34 doubt soundness exclusive, carrier. allegedly overlapping limited. narrowly power. Board2 hears (a) 'between carriers,' (b) 'growing conditions,' (c) 'by petition party.' renders 'awards,' 'final binding dispute.'3 sum total 35 somewhat analogous role industries derive comfort.5 NLRB 'unfair practices.' 10(k) (49 453, 61 146, 160(k)) whenever charged engaged unfair strike demand 'empowered arisen.' Under section, required requires obtain enforcement cease-and-desist determines certification agreement. go further contending 'then tasks decision.' 586, 338, 302 (1961).6 difficulty, counterpart No exists comparable 36 permanent arbitration institution arising established relationship.7 Its nature illustrated awards couched grievance asserted refer carriers, example, (o) 'In effective (Italics added.) cast carrier: 'If comply (p). Nowhere syllable indicate intention empowered act employee, organizations pass controversies union.8 scope, function, capability Board.9 practices' general. s 'hear determine' disputes; affecting comes constricted form 37 affected '(o)ne (that) unquestioned' according 372, 1155 (1955).10 arisen employed claimed Before announced notify asserting otherwise face premature; 'One unquestioned. Were Clerks indifferent it; within legal proceeding.' 849. said, flatly, 'The (i.e., union) matter.' 373, 850. substance, repudiates reasons, practical administrative symmetry conceptions complex situation. relations susceptible reduction simplicities; fear tread path. 38 much procedural matter. subjected assert strangers intend subjected. rules provide—regardless provisions, parties—the remedy both, demand. 39 sound eminently reasonable hearing. disruptive. line, word, supports Let suppose, machine operator, operator telegraphic displacing clerk. warrant statement 'which job' 'both contrary, regardless provides,11 establishes conceivable—the compensation. possible discussed, applying indeed payment event, sensible await negotiation overlap featherbedding.12 repeat—the task rewrite overlaps duplications; add those Congress, technical unauthorized principle. 40 reverse consistent views expressed herein, prayer award. section provides: conditions, handled usual but, failing adjustment manner, division facts supporting data bearing disputes.' 578, 48 1191, 153 (j), 'give policy various telegraphers', work-assignment prohibit participation anyone petitioning policy, followed nonpetitioning 1959, see, e.g., R.R. Telegraphers New Orleans, T. M. Ry. Cir., 229 F.2d 59, cert. denied, 350 997, 76 548, 100 861, Executives' Association, composed changed henceforth Association prescribed form-letter response—to sent notified Board—which disavowed except subsequent event adversely members' letter respond instant case. Appeals' reported 408. withdrawn unofficially 59 L.R.R.M. 2993. affirming dismissal failure appear cured joinder At alternative 'enforce aside' Pub.L. 89—456, 2(e), 209, inserted provision, (q), empowering understandable refusal existing decision, availability Among Telegraphers' Agreement following most relevant: ARTICLE 1—SCOPE. 1. wages conditions agents, agent-telegraphers, agent-telephoners, telephoners, telegrapher-clerks, telephoner-clerks, telegrapher-car distributors, ticket clerk-telegraphers, telegrapher-switch-tenders, C.T.C. train tower directors, towermen, lever- men, block operators, staffmen, managers, wire chiefs, repeater chief mechanicians, telephone (except switchboard operators), non-telegraphers, non-telephoners herein listed. 2—POSITIONS AND RATES OF PAY. 5. General Telegraph Offices. Positions telegraph offices Superintendent follows: Las Vegas "VG" Manager...................... 2.127 2d operator-printer m(e)chn. 1.995 3d mechn. Telegrapher................. 1.851 6. Positions. conformity class seniority created. 3—TIME ALLOWANCES. 10. Daily Guarantee. Regularly employes receive eight hours twenty-four hours, rate occupied, *. 6—SENIORITY. 47. Promotion. Promotion qualifications; qualifications sufficient, prevail. 8—GENERAL. 62. Train Orders. employe schedule dispatchers permitted employed, available, promptly located, emergency, call. 70. Date Effective Change. January provided excluded contracts, exist. suggests references treated irrelevant. plainly common-sense principles. submission demanding was), relief sought 'would abrogate negotiated Clerks' Organization divisions, responsible specified trades world. (h). Sections (i), (m) 1966 (80 amendment 'money awards' language. few minor exceptions awards. (m). (1955), cautioned analogies problems: 'Both history interests governs show unique. world state. population three million, include families workers, customs vocabulary, lives making.' Garrison, Board: Unique Administrative Agency, 46 568—569.' 371, 320 (1964), employer, so-called 'major' framework—for changed. Elgin, J. E.R. Co. Burley, 325 711, 722 728, 1282, 1289—1292, 1886 (1945), adhered rehearing, 327 661, 721, 928 resolution structure, federal bipartisan, composition, (a)—(h), perhaps suited task, larger role. instance, equal representatives, vote, representatives split—if, disagreed merits dispute—the voting allocate whichever chose. Boards utterly different. Some differences adverted text, suggested nn. 8, supra. difference institutionalized arbitrator relationship, implement public policies Congress. suppose says proceedings, end effectiveness ipse dixit Of renegotiation n. 7, also, Chicago N.W.R. 362 761, 774 (1960), upheld proposed abolishing existence date. 'major legitimate contemplation therefore anti-injunction 4, 13(c) Norris-LaGuardia 47 70, 72, 73 (1932), 104, 108, 113(c). rejected argument create 'labor perpetuate 'wasteful' 'unnecessary'

Category: 8