Document: 396 U.S. 142 90 S.Ct. 294 24 L.Ed.2d 325 The DETROIT AND TOLEDO SHORE LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Petitioner,v.UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION. No. 29. Argued Oct. 20, 1969. Decided Dec. 9, Francis M. Shea, New York City, for petitioner. Richard R. Lyman, Toledo, Ohio, respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case raises a question concerning extent to which Railway Labor Act 19261 imposes an obligation upon parties railroad labor dispute maintain status quo while 'purposely long and drawn out'2 procedures are exhausted. Petitioner, railroad, contends that requires be maintained consists only working conditions specifically covered in parties' existing collective bargaining agreement. Respondent brotherhood what must preserved as actual, objective out arose, irrespective whether these For reasons stated below, we think union's position is consistent with language purposes Act. 2 facts involved this these: main line Detroit Toledo Shore Line (Shore Line), petitioner's runs from Lang Yard 50 miles north Dearoad near Detroit, Michigan. many years prior 1961, was terminal at all train engine crews reported work they left end day. As occasions transported perform switching other operations various points north, assuming costs transportation overtime crew members. On February 21, advised respondent Brotherhood Locomotive Firemen Enginemen (BLF&E)3 its intention establish 'outlying assignments'4 Trenton, Michigan, point on about 35 Yard. These new assignments would have required employees report Trenton rather than where had been reporting. BLF&E responded announcement by filing notice under § 6 Act5 proposing amendment agreement cover changed who Trenton. Section both carrier union give party 30-day 'intended change agreements affecting rates pay, rules, or conditions.'6 Since thus invoked 'major-dispute' settlement Act,7 first went conference and, when failed agree between themselves, then National Mediation Board. 3 While pending before Board, announced two outlying Dearoad, northern line. Because could taken cab south concluded it no longer needed so When were announced, withdrew Board proceedings, Special Adjustment convened Act,8 challenged railroad's right assignments. November 30, 1965, ruled Line-BLF&E did not prohibit making assignments.9 4 Relying part ruling notified January 24, 1966, reviving plan Again proposed time sought amend forbid any all. again unable negotiate June 17, services proceedings pending, posted bulletin definitely creating disputed effective September 26, 1966. Faced unilateral conditions, threatened strike. brought action United States District Court enjoin BLF&E10 calling carrying allegedly illegal counterclaimed injunction prohibiting establishing ground provision forbids taking altering 'rates conditions' pertinent provides:11 5 'In every * requested either *, shall altered until controversy has finally acted *.' 45 U.S.C. 156. dismissed complaint, appeal taken, but granted restraining elsewhere.12 Appeals Sixth Circuit affirmed issuance against railroad. 401 F.2d 368 (1968). We certiorari, 393 1116, 89 990, 22 121 (1969). 7 In granting held requirement prohibited even though there nothing such vigorously challenges holding. It purpose provisions guarantee continue govern rights duties during efforts those agreements. Therefore, argues, Congress intended writing altered' expressed altered. And since precluded location assignments, condition 'expressed agreement.' Thus, argument runs, make without violating 6, judgments below reversed. 8 note outset simply does say say. Instead, section speaks plainly limitation obligations already embodied More important, persuaded interpretation sharply variance overall design 9 passed 1926 encourage railroads their order prevent, if possible, wasteful strikes interruptions interstate commerce.13 problem considered particularly acute area 'major disputes,' disputes involving formation them. Elgin, J & E.R. Co. v. Burley, 711, 722—726, 65 1282, 1289—1291, L.Ed. 1886 (1945). Rather rely compulsory arbitration, sides bitterly opposed, representatives drafted chose leave major entirely processes noncompulsory adjustment. Id., 724, 1290. To end, established elaborate machinery negotiation, mediation, voluntary conciliation. General Committee B.L.E. Missouri-K.T.R. Co., 320 323, 328 333, 64 146, 148—151, 88 76 (1943). imposed reasonable effort refrain resorting self-help Act's remedies being exhausted.14 Railroad Trainmen Jacksonville Terminal 394 369, 378, 1109, 1115, 344 (1969); J. supra, 721 731, S.Ct., 1288—1294; Texas N.O.R. S. Clerks, 281 548, 565—566, 427, 432, 74 1034 (1930). A final crucial aspect power given public exhaustion almost interminable process. noted Steamship etc. Florida E.C.R. 384 238, 246, 86 1420, 1424, 16 501 (1966), 'the purposely out, based hope reason practical considerations will provide resolves dispute.' central design. Its immediate effect prevent striking management doing anything justify run, delaying can resort provides tempers cool, helps create atmosphere rational occur, permits forces mobilized favor strike lockout. Moreover, usually arise one wants undue delay, gives preserve prolonged period frequently worth-while moving compromise interests side reach interruption commerce. 10 There three Act, each covering different stage procedures. concern case, up through Board.15 First 30 days following closing 'no made practices arose,' unless arbitration Presidential Emergency created days.16 Finally, after creation President, change, except agreement, arose.'17 read conjunction implicit First, 'to exert effort' settle commerce.18 11 quoted §§ 5, identical believe provisions, together integrated, harmonious scheme preserving beginning 'cooling-off' period. Although applicable stages procedures, intent far defining concerned.19 properly unchanged practices, broadly conceived, arose related dispute.20 12 quite apparent our requirement, advanced little merit. bound suggests restriction. stressed extends clearly need mere fact us expressly barred ordering gave rise present if, apart occurred sufficient knowledge acquiescence become reality actual conditions. Here, however, over establishment include therefore incumbent virtue place previously none, regardless agreement.21 13 Line's also fundamentally odds primary objective—the prevention strikes. good illustration why so. goal BLF E matter achieve goal, refused instead, proceeded hardly expected sit idly rushed accomplish very result seeking undoubtedly felt could, unreasonably, prematurely resorted self-help, came close defeated. example doubt multiplied times. virtually impossible collective-bargaining Where satisfactorily tolerable sides, often omitted suggested practice more frequent industry most others.22 moves bring uncovered within absolutely essential apply fulfilled. If free take advantage agreement's silence cannot hold back own economic weapons, including Only equally restrained effectively.23 14 now turn answer some arguments support position. involves Seventh That changing employees, class manner prescribed Act.'24 (Emphasis added.) argues 'as agreements' restriction contains should into 10. find merit argument. Seventh, added 1934, impose attendant states category cases invoked. twofold: operates legal binding agreements, lays down statutory violation criminal offense punishable imprisonment fine both.25 Violations civil wrongs. 15 Second, adopt today previous occasions, citing Order Ry. Conductors America Pitney, 326 561, 66 322, 318 (1946), Williams 315 386, 62 659, 914 (1942). do contain statements context tend position, neither dealt today. Pitney suit reorganization trustees bankrupt transferring certain job another union. plaintiff's contention jobs belonged members custom reassigning jobs, argued, never filed appropriate 6. reassignments require 'change put meaning issue. proper forum interpreting provided (i), purpose, directed stay accordingly. U.S., 567—568, 325. most, necessity concerned section. inapposite. 'redcaps' representative Dallas recover wages owed them retained Fair Standards redcaps' tips included satisfying minimum wage requirements. Yet, done 'accounting guarantee' October 1938, F.L.S.A. became effective, March 1940. majority rejected argument, holding nor inclusion wages. contract parties. 407—408, 671—672. claim terminal's operation unilaterally date F.L.S.A., despite redcaps weeks earlier asked subject This, violated concluded, reasoned continued individually plan, independent contracts formed redcap terminal. affected request bargining decision rested partially '(i)ndependent individual Act.' 399, 667. said narrowly requirements inapplicable applies involved. 400, 668. history matter. Without pausing comment vitality grounds dismissing claim, readily applied reached scope dispute, today, concededly applies. 17 correctly, several Annual Reports.26 However, adjudicatory authority regard disputes, mandate issue regulations construing generally. Certainly interpreted giving plain, literal statute, 18 judgment affirmed. 19 Affirmed. 20 HARLAN, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, concurring dissenting part. 21 I fully application restricted terms employment seen fit embody written may properly, circumstances, extended 'freeze' de facto employment. cannot, accept appears majority's test determining freeze appropriate.1 Any is, words majority, 'actual, condition.' However accepted yesterday, temporary expedient acquiesces. difficult party, serving notice, able shackle his adversary tie him historically consistently controverted. Rather, persuades me countenance extension beyond fact, observed Court, '(w)here *,' ante, 155. Taking observation departure, subjective approach mechanical language. relationship principals, whole, basis implying understanding particular necessary consider duration dealings parties, example, negotiations. 23 recognize, course, easily applied, subscribe rule incongruous perpetuating view practice, because convenience, exercised recognized option self-help. Under standard disposition remand additional findings.2 found '(f)or 1961' reporting duty, finding alone satisfy light subsequent events negatived might existed 1961.3 1961 contemplated shifting north. proposal apparently met employee resistance served modify By 1963 exhausted mediation route reconciling differences recommended break impasse. company declared moot since, time, abandoned project. Meanwhile, embarked transporting expense terminal, separate notice. 25 my called determine company's abandonment project, coupled undertaking transport cost long-established amounted acceptance principle ofLang location. 26 respectfully dissent Court's affirmance Appeals. 44 Stat. 577, amended, 151 et seq. (1966). Transportation Union, successor organization Enginemen, substituted 3, Respondents officers named original complaint. treat term assignment' assignment going off duty located elsewhere principal yard, Ohio. usage here. 582, entirety, provides: 'Carriers least thirty days' interested changes agreed ten receipt given, conferences reference thereto, Madiation proffered services, elapsed termination proffer Board.' See n. supra. dispute' arising 722—727, 1289—1292, 578, 153. At point, considering 'minor dispute,' i.e., settled whose 1289 1292. found: 'What took here assignment. rules precludes outside assignment.' App. 110. defendant, unions. causes brotherhoods completely different, treated distinct trial appeal. litigation stage. full set unreported. C66—207 (D.C.N.D.Ohio, Nov. 15, 1966). motion vacate 267 F.Supp. 572 (1967). S.S. 565, (1930), said: 'The insists, rightly, passing strikes." major-dispute concisely Harlan last Term, (1969): detailed framework facilitate disputes. desiring advance confer, fails resolve invoke sua sponte finds emergency exist. First. fails, endeavor induce submit place, consent. 7. threatens 'substantially interrupt commerce degree deprive country service, notify President,' board investigate dispute. way stages, alter quo. 10.' entirety 580, 155 part: 'If once mediatory thereafter, intervening arose.' 10, 586, 160, 'After 152 (1964), 'It carriers, officers, agents, otherwise, avoid growing thereof.' explicit testimony Donald Richberg spoke unions' legislation presented jointly unions: 'As maintaining engendered, law arbitrarily adjusted accordance law. Their 'reasonable efforts' forth decided conference, possible; that, second, type carried adjustment; adjustment, mediators, mediators act.' Hearings H.R. 7180 House Interstate Foreign Commerce, 69th Cong., 1st Sess., 92—93 (1926). supported legislative See, e.g., 18, testified: '(T)he thing provoke arbitrary (referring strikes) pay settled, entire utilization law.' 93—94 continuity Joseph B. Eastman, Federal Co-ordinator Transportation, draftsman proponent 1934 amendments, act reads, rejecting Mediation's recommendation arbitrate enabled arbitrarily, President appointing fact-finding 60 days. unintentional hiatus instances. designed plug hold.' 3266 Senate 73d 2d (1934). discussed depth congressional hearings bill. Richberg, 19, testified follows questioned provision: thought broadest factors contributed commonly words, depend wages.' broader phrase used 'conditions arose' comprehends elements controversy? clear wait Government opportunity adjust controversy.' 2306 88—89 Brief Executives' Association amicus curiae 17. urged brief bargain faith, Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. NLRB, 379 203, 85 398, 233 NLRB Katz, 369 736, 82 1107, 230 (1962). Deciding unnecessary 48 1188, follows: 'No carrier, agents Tenth, 1189, Tenth. 34th Report stated: 'Section specified procedures.' NMB, Ann.Rep. (fiscal year ended 1968). Emphasis added. 33d 36 1967); 31st 1965). announces looking conditions,' later qualified durational general forth. theory, restricting means precisely followed concluding applicable. findings, appear possible impact revealed record connection 1961—1963

Category: 6