Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/443/131/245611/
Timestamp: 2020-08-11 00:09:31
Document Index: 684543793

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6', '§ 2', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 10', '§ 2', '§ 10', '§ 2']

United Transportation Union, Local 63e, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Penn Central Company, Defendant-appellant, 443 F.2d 131 (6th Cir. 1971) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Sixth Circuit › 1971 › United Transportation Union, Local 63e, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Penn Central Company, Defendant-appel...
United Transportation Union, Local 63e, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Penn Central Company, Defendant-appellant, 443 F.2d 131 (6th Cir. 1971)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 443 F.2d 131 (6th Cir. 1971) May 27, 1971
The union's1 position, on the other hand, is that the crew boards were central to the entire employment operation, that they were relied upon heavily by employees in determining the time off which they had available for rest and recreation and family duties, that the new system could not be termed a crew board under any stretch of the imagination, that in fact this was a unilateral alteration of a working condition prohibited by the Railway Labor Act, and that under Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, 89 S. Ct. 1109, 22 L. Ed. 2d 344 (1969), and other cases, the District Judge had ample authority to issue the injunction which he issued.
"The Act provides a detailed framework to facilitate the voluntary settlement of major disputes. A party desiring to effect a change of rates of pay, rules, or working conditions must give advance written notice. § 6. The parties must confer, § 2 Second, and if conference fails to resolve the dispute, either or both may invoke the services of the National Mediation Board, which may also proffer its services sua sponte if it finds a labor emergency to exist. § 5 First. If mediation fails, the Board must endeavor to induce the parties to submit the controversy to binding arbitration, which can take place, however, only if both consent. §§ 5 First, 7. If arbitration is rejected and the dispute threatens `substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service, the Mediation Board shall notify the President,' who may create an emergency board to investigate and report on the dispute. § 10. While the dispute is working its way through these stages, neither party may unilaterally alter the status quo. §§ 2 Seventh, 5 First, 6, 10." (Emphasis added). Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., supra at 378, 89 S. Ct. at 1115.
"There are three status quo provisions in the Act, each covering a different stage of the major dispute settlement procedures. Section 6, the section of immediate concern in this case, provides that `rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered' during the period from the first notice of a proposed change in agreements up to and through any proceedings before the National Mediation Board. Section 5 First provides that for 30 days following the closing of Mediation Board proceedings `no change shall be made in the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions or established practices in effect prior to the time the dispute arose,' unless the parties agree to arbitration or a Presidential Emergency Board is created during the 30 days. Finally, § 10 provides that after the creation of an Emergency Board and for 30 days after the Board has made its report to the President, `no change, except by agreement, shall be made by the parties to the controversy in the conditions out of which the dispute arose.' These provisions must be read in conjunction with implicit status quo requirement in the obligation imposed upon both parties by § 2 First, `to exert every reasonable effort' to settle disputes without interruption to interstate commerce." (Footnotes omitted.) Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Railroad Co. v. United Transportation Union, 396 U.S. 142, 150-151, 90 S. Ct. 294, 299-300, 24 L. Ed. 2d 325 (1969).
This case has many parallel aspects to the Shore Line case where under somewhat more difficult facts the United States Supreme Court recently held that this same District Court had jurisdiction to enter an injunction to maintain the status quo pending mediation. Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Railroad Co. v. United Transportation Union, 396 U.S. 142, 90 S. Ct. 294, 24 L. Ed. 2d 325 (1969).