Document: 349 U.S. 366 75 S.Ct. 845 99 L.Ed. 1155 J. W. WHITEHOUSE et al., Petitioners,v.ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY al. No. 131. Argued Feb. 10, 11, 1955. Decided June 6, Mr. Milton Kamer, for petitioner. Walter Cummings, Jr., Chicago, Ill., respondents. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This suit arose out a proceeding before National Railroad Adjustment Board. A dispute had arisen between Order Telegraphers (Telegraphers) and Illinois Central Co. (Railroad) regarding latter's employment member Brotherhood Railway Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express Station Employees (Clerks) in position which claimed should, under its collective bargaining agreement with Railroad, be assigned to Telegraphers. After attempted settlement by negotiation failed, submitted dispute, accordance Labor Act, 44 Stat. 577, as amended, 48 926, 45 U.S.C. § 151 seq., U.S.C.A. Third Division Notice was served Board on Railroad. then advised letter that Clerks would prosecute claim event rights their were adversely affected disposition Telegraphers' claim. filed 'submission' asserting disputed involved clerical work type customarily performed forces industry fact occupied one Shears. Accordingly, contended, should denied, but any notice opportunity heard afforded 2 The ten members Board, five representing labor carriers, deadlocked merits Referee appointed agreeably 3, First (l) Act. When came hearing May 13, 1953, carrier objected no been pursuant requirement 3 (j) Act: 'Parties may either person, counsel, or other representatives, they respectively elect, several divisions shall give due all hearings employee employees carriers disputes them.' 4 objection considered camera regular having excluded, District Court found, 'in custom practice Division.' An even division resulted did not carry. reconvened public, presence Referee, who requested vote this issue, recited motion lost reiterated his objection, resumed. 5 On 22, apparently after ended prior announcement decision, present action against such, individual members, Referee. alleged failure violated Act an award prevent from prosecuting similar successfully. complaint sought temporary permanent injunctions directing issue Shears, restraining it until such given. Telegraphers, intervention, inter alia, means review prescribed exclusive deprived jurisdiction, failed exhaust administrative remedies, showed injury, that, event, required notify Shears Clerks. moved dismiss ground premature, adequate judicial remedies existed threatened irreparable injury.1 6 held 'employees involved' within (j), 'custom practice' deny right others than parties specific do so denial process interested persons jurisdiction. It issued preliminary injunction further matter unless formal given appeal Appeals Seventh Circuit there could 'hardly doubt' 'involved' rendered without them void unenforceable. rejected contention premature because might favor dismissed upon deciding based notice. court found already refused authority cast 'procedural' matter. Since channel available notice, need await conclusion proceedings Irreparable injury devote time money what deemed invalid faced threat conflicting Emphasizing constitute award, nature mandamus' compel perform duty, affirmed, judge dissenting. 212 F.2d 30. We granted certiorari serious questions concerning administration are issue. 348 809, 36. 7 have urged resolve submission has numerous decisions Board.2 remains perplexing problem despite substantial among Courts question holding is varying situations.3 wording provision does clear answer. In context related provisions certainly obvious situation like now us beyond submission. See (i), (l), (m). Analogy law developed compelling approach constitutional magnitude. Both history interests governs show unique. 'The railroad world state state. Its population some three million, if we include families workers, own customs vocabulary, lives according rules making.' Garrison, Board: Unique Administrative Agency, 46 Yale L.J. 567, 568—569. 8 also reverse lower neither deadlock nor, break merits, Again, asked Railroad's relief basis injuries flow dilemma will find itself confronted valid obtained. asserts inevitable entail continuing industrial friction, possibility awards both unions, accumulating claims back pay damages avoided rendered. If it, at loss know whether comply subjected suits enjoin compliance third party, refuse attempt defend enforcement brought (p). 9 At lowest doubtful these hypothetical fairly remedy. Assuming permits consider union light competing agreements see Conductors v. Pitney, 326 561, 66 322, 90 318, permit 'final binding' interpreting contracts resolving independent unions single proceeding? What, challenge improperly permitted participate? Compare Elgin, Joliet & Eastern R. Burley, 325 711, 65 1282, 89 1886, General Committee Missouri-K.-T.R. Co., 320 323, 64 146, 88 76. To extent defects cured (p), detriments asserted refusal reliance sufficient justify intervention? Cf. Federal Trade Commission Claire Furnace 274 160, 47 553, 71 978. One thing unquestioned. Were indifferent it; legal participate proceeding. here intervene. They merely stated intention bring separate case case. Indeed refers understanding whereby intervene initiated other, press independently. And joined brief amicus curiae entitled thus those potential solely intervention where complaining party free nor assurance afford relief. 10 These questions. Their difficulty admonishes observe wise limitations our function confine ourselves only necessary immediate Here decision Apart court's dicta, reason holding, abstract, possible outsider interest cannot compulsorily jurisdiction over subject treated error, best harmless error made resort courts preceded occasion it. result disrupt delayed more two years. 11 true, observed, must viewed mere injunctive most seeks avoid. But mandamus governed equitable considerations exercise sound discretion. hold, conformity past decisions, too speculative warrant extraordinary remedies. Eccles People's Bank, 333 426, 641, 92 784; Public Service Comm. Wycoff 344 237, 73 236, 97 291; United States ex rel. Chicago G.W.R. Interstate Commerce Commission, 294 50, 55 326, 79 752. Moreover, being put needless expense incident pending necessarily denied stage process. Such inadequate injunction. Myers Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 41, 58 459, 82 638; Utah Fuel Bituminous Coal Comm., 306 56, 59 409, 83 483. 12 Reversed. 13 REED, DOUGLAS MINTON dissent. 14 HARLAN took part consideration diametrically opposite answers complaint. grant grounds forth Telegraphers; generally agreed supported request E.g., compare Award 2253 (3d Div., Aug. 1943, H. Nathan Swaim, Referee) 5432 Sept. 1951, Jay S. Parker, Referee). See, e.g., Nord Griffin, Cir., 1936, 86 481; Estes Union Terminal 1937, 768; Trainmen Templeton, 1950, 181 527; Kirby Pennsylvania 188 793; cf. New Orleans, T. M.R. 1946, 156 1.

Category: 8