Opinion ID: 1408914
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the applicability of the railway labor act

Text: Both the defendant railroads and Travelers Insurance Company urged before the federal court that jurisdiction in this matter lies exclusively with the National Railroad Adjustment Board under the Railway Labor Act as a minor dispute and the claimant took the contrary position. The federal court did not resolve that issue, ruling that it did not have before it a federal question or original jurisdiction, and commenting that the state would have to decide if this is a minor dispute. However, following remand, the trial court did not resolve that issue, and the parties have not at this point presented evidence before either the trial court, or this court, upon which such a determination can be made. Rather, the issue has served no purpose other than to confuse the proceedings, and on remand the parties should squarely address the issue to provide the trial court with an opportunity for a proper ruling. As guidance, we would note that the focus should not be upon whether this is a minor dispute as distinguished from a major dispute under the Railway Labor Act, but rather whether it is a dispute under the Railway Labor Act at all. Title 45, Section 153, U.S.C.A. provides for the establishment of the National Railroad Adjustment Board and defines its duties relative to the resolution of grievances as follows: (i) The disputes between an employee or group of employees and a carrier or carriers growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, including cases pending and unadjusted on June 21, 1934, shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes; but failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board with a full statement of the facts and all supporting data bearing upon the disputes. (Emphasis supplied). The trial court should determine whether, as Travelers contends, this action involves a dispute over the interpretation or application of an agreement concerning rates of pay, rules or working conditions, or whether, as contended by Mrs. Downing, the issue is whether or not the insurance policy is a contract for the benefit of a third party, with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy being the matter in contention. Title 45, Section 154, U.S.C.A. establishes the National Mediation Board and Section 155 provides the jurisdiction in that Board to (a) mediate disputes concerning changes in rates of pay, rules or working conditions not adjusted by the parties in conference, and (b) any other dispute not referable to the National Railroad Adjustment Board or not adjusted in conference between the parties. The distinction between a major dispute and minor dispute is summarized in Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. TWA, Inc., 655 F.2d 155 at 158 (1981): A major dispute is one arising out of the formation or change of a collective-bargaining agreement covering rates of pay, rules or working conditions. A minor dispute, on the other hand, is one growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions. (Citations omitted). The trial court having not ruled upon the applicability or nonapplicability of the Railway Labor Act to the claim of plaintiff, this Court will not do so on appeal, but will remand for initial determination thereof by the trial court. We would note for the trial court's consideration two matters which are in the record. First, Mr. Eddie Joe Kinder, the director of Travelers Insurance Company's group department which is responsible for all of the group life, accident, and health insurance policies issued by Travelers testified in deposition that whether or not payment would be made by Travelers was apparently subject to the terms of the insurance policy rather than an interpretation submitted for adjudication to the Railway Adjustment Board. [3] Secondly, the trial court might wish to consider whether an authority submitted by defendants is on point, and if so, which way it cuts, that being Neville v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company, 424 F. Supp. 1349 (D.C.Miss. 1976). [4] III