Document: 353 U.S. 30 77 S.Ct. 635 1 L.Ed.2d 622 BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, etc., et al., Petitioners,v.CHICAGO RIVER and INDIANA COMPANY al. No. 313. Argued Feb. 26, 1957. Decided March 25, Mr. William C. Wines, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners. Walter J. Cummings, Jr., respondents. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. We are asked to interpret that provision Railway Labor Act1 which created National Railroad Adjustment Board resolution minor grievances in event parties were unable settle them by negotiation. The ultimate question is whether a railway labor organization can resort strike over matters pending before Board.2 2 Chicago River Indiana Company operates switching yard facilities at stockyards. A segment employees Road represented Brotherhood Trainmen. collective bargaining agreement between was existence throughout period covered this case. present disagreement arises from an accumulation twenty-one members against carrier. Nineteen these claims additional compensation, one claim reinstatement higher position, employ When negotiations failed, called strike. Because serious nature impending work stoppage, Mediation proffered its services. mediator unsuccessful, upon his withdrawal, submitted controversy Board. promptly issued call four days later. 3 then sought relief District threatened irreparable injury carrier, 600 industries 27 railroads served it, complaint prayed preliminary injunction, ultimately permanent temporary restraining order issued, but vacated dismissed finding district judge Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 101—115, applicable court lacked jurisdiction grant requested. Court Appeals Seventh Circuit reversed. 229 F.2d 926. injunction accordingly entered affirmed Circuit. granted certiorari resolve important concerning interpretation application Act.3 352 865, 97, 73. 4 redress admittedly 'minor disputes' as phrase known parlance Act. These controversies meaning existing particular fact situation, generally involving only employee. § 2, Sixth.4 They may be contrasted with 'major result when there process new contract. Seventh.5 See Elgin, & E.R. Co. v. Burley, 325 711, 722—724, 65 1282, 1289, 1290, 89 L.Ed. 1886. 5 first step toward settlement either kind dispute negotiation conference parties. Section 3, First (i)6 provides that— 6 'The disputes employee or group carrier carriers growing out agreements rates pay, rules, working conditions * shall handled usual manner up including chief operating officer designated handle such *.' If reach agreement, section continues— 7 '* but, failing adjustment manner, referred petition party appropriate division (National Railroad) full statement facts all supporting data bearing disputes.' 8 (m)7 declares 9 awards several divisions final binding both 10 This language unequivocal. Congress has set tribunal have not been resolved themselves. Awards 'final parties.' And side submit suggests we read act mean organized free make use procedures they wish to; no compulsion on allow if alternative remedy, economic duress, seems more desirable.8 Such would render meaningless those provisions Act Board, whose decision find sides. correct, could union amenable doing so. First, reads otherwise should literally applied absence clear showing contrary qualified intention Congress. 11 Legislative history creating reinforces literal law composite two major pieces legislation. Most basic framework adopted 1926.9 In 1934, after eight years experience, statute amended, amendment born.10 12 distinction found 1926 statute. Above level conference, each follow separate procedure. First,11 groups their agree formation boards adjustment, composed equally representatives management, along became function Mediation, predecessor 13 obvious lack any characteristic proved weakness handling As stated Report House Representatives Committee Interstate Foreign Commerce, hearings 1934 amendment: 'In many instances establish (of adjustment).' H.R.Rep. 1944, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 3. weakness, however. 'Many thousands (minor) considered established under Act; majority decision, so proceedings deadlocked.' Ibid. 14 condition market contrast declared purpose disputes, arising otherwise, avoid interruption commerce operation thereof.' First.12 continued: 15 'These unadjusted become numerous occasions resorted issuance ballots interrupt interstate secure adjustment. made it necessary President United States intervene emergency board investigate controversies. corrected interest industrial peace uninterrupted transportation service.' 16 means chosen correct situation Congress, making unnecessary own boards.13 case deadlock continued policy equal representation allowed select neutral referee sit break tie. cannot even referee, appointed Board.14 Thus machinery built disposition grievances. 17 change concurrence national organizations. Commissioner Joseph B. Eastman, Federal Coordinator Transportation principal draftsman bill, complimented unions conceding right favor Board: 18 willingness is, my judgment, very concession advantage taken public interest. I regard as, perhaps, most part bill.'15 19 Asked matter discretion he replied negative. It was, said, duty— 20 understanding grievances—and dealt board—are entirely agreeable law. 21 'I think part. (T)his effect arbitrate disputes.'16 22 spokesman organizations George M. Harrison. He appeared chairman legislative committee Executives' Association Senate Committee. comprised standard groups, testified Committee: 23 'So, experience recognizing character services given people country our industry how essential welfare country, come conclusion respect minor-grievance cases grow and/or contracts already well permit decided, board.'17 24 Later, Committee, declared: 25 'Grievances instituted railroad officers' actions, willing take chances because believe, best efficient method getting determination arise officers employees. 26 always opposed compulsory (W)e now ready concede risk having go had get determined, contribution make.'18 voice unanimous concession. representative International Teamsters vehemently objected adoption First. 28 'We unalterably paragraph M, (which) brings about arbitration prevents weapon hands labor. believe dangerous precedent passage paragraph, knowledge time measure enacted States.'19 record convincing general supporters opponents dealing limited field. Our reading therefore confirmed, rebutted, history. remains federal courts compel compliance extent enjoining striking defeat contends Act20 withdrawn power issue injunctions disputes. That limitation, urged, applies force other industries. 31 hold alone There must accommodation enactment preserved. purposes Acts reconcilable. 32 adopting endeavored bring stable relationships management industry. failure voluntary large number strengthening provide effective agency, sides participated, Accumulation resulted aggregate being enough threaten disruption transportation. Hence, consent brotherhoods, 33 hand, designed primarily protect men exercise organized, power, vital bargaining. aimed abuses injunctive remedy drawn into field guise enforcing statutes, principally Sherman through diversity citizenship jurisdiction. latter cases, employed principles frequently variance concepts where sat. acted prevent upsetting natural interplay competing forces capital. Rep. LaGuardia, during floor debates 1932 recognized channeled forces, railray labor, special processes intended compromise them.21 controversies, therefore, same strips primary without substituting reasonable alternative.22 34 prior authorized vindicate Virginia R. System Federation 40, 300 515, 57 592, 81 789, action enjoin Act's certification representative. raised dispute. held: 35 'It suffices say affect decree far conflict Ninth, (45 152, subd. 9), authorizing granted. rendered nugatory earlier Act.' Id., page 563, 607. 36 Trainmen Howard, 343 768, 72 1022, 96 1283, similar cases,23 held specific precedence 37 'Our orders (to enforce requirements Act) notwithstanding 774, 1025. 38 principle.24 39 cited ban lifted conduct unlawful some statute.25 inapposite None involved need accommodate pattern 40 judgment affirmed. 41 ordered. 42 Affirmed. 43 WHITTAKER took consideration 44 Stat. 577, 45 U.S.C. 151—188, 151—188. relationship developed different fundamental premises form basis Relations 49 449, amended 151 seq., seq. differences underlies addition importance question, decisions Courts Appeals. Central Georgia Co., 901, decided Fifth Circuit, came Certiorari 90, 73, writ suggestion mootness. 995, 554. Sixth, 6. Seventh, 7. 153, (i), 1(i). (m), 1(m). does discuss normally grievance recalcitrant. doubted support allowing itself. statutory language, however, distinction. 577. 48 1185. 578—579. 577—578. Second, authorizes establishment system, regional co-extensive insures ineffectiveness local boards. 'Minor eliminated functions amendment. However, still dispute' 'any exist time.' 5, 155, 1. presented situation. enters solely motion, true within Hearings Commerce H.R. 7650, 47. 58, 60. 81—82. S. 3266, 33, 35. supra, note 15, 118. 47 70, 101—115. 75 Cong.Rec. 5499, 5503—5504. entertain motion. Its invoked case, filed seeking injunction. Cf. exhaustion remedies 108, 108. Graham L.F. E., 338 232, 70 14, 94 22; Tunstall 323 210, 235, 187; Steele Louisville N.R. 192, 226, 173. also Rolfes Dwellingham, Cir., 198 591. dispute.' Toledo, P. W.R. 321 50, 64 413, 88 534. course, like Milk Wagon Drivers' Union, etc. Lake Valley Farm Products, Inc., 311 91, 61 122, 85 63; East Texas Motor Freight Lines Teamsters, 163 10; cf., Mead, 217 6; re Third Avenue Transit Corp., 192 971; Carter Herrin Lines, 131 557; Wilson Birl, 105 948.

Category: 6