Document: 339 U.S. 255 70 S.Ct. 585 94 L.Ed. 811 ORDER OF RY. CONDUCTORS AMERICAv.SOUTHERN CO. No. 438. Argued Feb. 8—9, 1950. Decided April 10, Mr. V. C. Shuttleworth, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for petitioner. W. Scott Mcagill, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case raises same statutory question as Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W.R. Co., 239, 577. The petitioner, Order Railway Conductors, is only accredited bargaining representative conductors employed by respondent Southern Railway. A dispute arose between certain and railroad concerning railroad's obligation under collective-bargaining agreement to give extra pay services. claims were referred union, which sought negotiation persuade pay. refused, thereafter prayed a South Carolina state court declaratory judgment interpreting not requiring claimed payments. trial first refused exercise jurisdiction. Citing Conductors Pitney, 326 561, 66 322, 90 318, it held that courts, like federal should leave settlement such disputes National Railroad Adjustment Board. Supreme Court reversed, holding did have power interpret adjudicate dispute. 210 S.C. 121, 41 S.E.2d 774. After lengthy lower collective require compensation entered requested. affirmed. 215 280, 54 816. 2 For reasons set out in case, 577, we hold was without terms this We discuss separately because sharply points up conflicts could arise from intervention railroad-union disputes. had sued court, union filed petition hearing award before nevertheless proceeded Sustaining court's action would invite races diligence whenever carrier or preferred one forum other. And if choose instead Board, other party be deprived privilege conferred § 3, First (i) Labor Act, 48 Stat. 1191, 45 U.S.C. 153, (i), U.S.C.A. provides after negotiations failed 'either party' may refer appropriate division 3 cause remanded proceedings inconsistent with opinion. 4 It so ordered. 5 REED view decision below affirmed his dissent 6 DOUGLAS took no part consideration case.

Category: 9