Legal Document

382 U.S. 257 86 Supreme Court Reporter 368 15 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 308 Federal KF105 F3 Judge GUNTHER, Petitioner,v.SAN DIEGO & ARIZONA EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Number 27. Argued Nov. 8, 1965. Decided Dec. Charles W. Decker, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Waldron Atlantic Gregory, respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner, Gunther, worked as a fireman respondent railroad eight years, from 1916 to 1924, and an engineer 30 1924 until December 30, 1954. On that date, shortly after his seventy-first birthday, he was removed active service because alleged physical disability. railroad's action taken on basis reports made by its physicians, examinations in their no longer physically qualified work locomotive 'heart such condition would be likely suffer acute coronary episode.' Dissatisfied with doctors' findings, Gunther went recognized specialist who, examination, concluded petitioner continue engineer. this report requested join him selection three-doctor board re-examine qualifications return service. refused. This disagreement led prolonged litigation which has reached us 11 years controversy arose. 2 When refused consent appointment new doctors or restore service, filed claim reinstatment back pay Railroad Adjustment Board, created § 3 Railway Labor Act, amended,1 adjust, among other things, disputes railroads employees 'growing out grievances interpretation application agreements concerning * rules, working conditions *.'2 over protests railroad, decided it had jurisdiction grievance then, referring past practice similar cases, proceeded, findings show, appoint committee three 'one chosen carrier one employe third two so selected, purpose determining facts claimant's disability propriety removal *.' Subsequently, examined majority vote act engineer, contrary prior doctors. Upon these Board been wrong disqualifying sustained 'for reinstatement all time lost October 15, 1955 comply Board's order authorized Act3 district court appropriate enforce award. After hearings District Court, case, held award erroneous it.4 Court's refusal based conclusion there were express implied provisions collective bagaining contract court's judgment limited any way what found absolute right absence provisions, remove whenever physicians good faith 'that plaintiff disqualified service.' Appeals affirmed, agreeing put upon thereby rejected decision merits dispute. 336 Reporter, 2nd 543. We granted certiorari holding courts below seemed, several respects, run counter requirements Act we have construed it. 380 905, 85 890, 13 793. I. Section 3, First (i) provides 'disputes between employee group carriers growing agreements' are handled Board. In Congress established expert body settle 'minor' like petitioner's arise day industry. composed equally representatives management labor is peculiarly familiar thorny problems whole range constantly exist world. Its membership daily contact workers employers, knows industry's language, customs, practices. See Slocum versus Delaware, L. W.R. Co., 339 239, 243—244, 70 577, 94 L.Ed. 795. here fairly read shows bargaining secured seniority rights, together contract, justifying guaranteeing 'priority according pursuant agreement long qualified.' whose affirmed Appeals, however, accept contract. Paying strict attention only bare words invoking old common-law rules private employment contracts, nothing restricting goodfaith own physicians. Certainly cannot said wholly baseless completely without reason. hold well beyond province rejecting agreement. As hereafter pointed Congress, invested broad power arbitrate plainly intended controversial should submitted men, both management, serving experience accepted expertise field. 4 II. also appointing medical decide question fact relating do not agree. course, evidence obtaining information. doctors, whom appointed company, seems eminently fair method selecting perform task but appears record commonly used world very here. under respondent's present engineers provision dispute precisely before manner Act's 'provisions dealing considered compulsory arbitration field.'5 here, involving health ability operate engine, arbitrators probably find difficult better arriving at truth than use selected were. reject idea some breached duty relying did finding 5 III. (m) awards 'shall final binding parties dispute, except insofar they shall contain money award.'6 central wrongfully twofold, consisting earnings. Thus arises whether may open up job merely part contained cannot. again emphasized re-emphasized minor finally Brotherhood Trainmen Chicago River Indiana R. 353 77 635, 622, gave same finality have. Union Pacific company Price, 360 601, 79 1351, 1460, discussed legislative history length 'was designed effective daily' 'statutory scheme realistically squared contention foreclose disposed U.S., 616, S.Ct., 1359. Also Locomotive Engineers Louisville Nashville 373 33, 83 1059, 10 172, decisions clear 'compulsory field,' Page 40, 1063, 'the complete means settling disputes,' 39, 1062, 'a mandatory, exclusive, comprehensive system resolving disputes.' KF135 P2 38, 1062. 6 foregoing opinions does allow federal review determination award, merits, basic here—that is, complaint health—has finally, completely, irrevocably settled decision. Consequently, wrongful issue must 7 IV. There remains further proceedings case respect aspect determine amount due account It 'reinstatement 1955.' Though discharge size distinction drawn supra, Pages 40—41, 1064, when computation time-lost 'an separable issue.' how much reason proper issues can raised reference necessary compensate lost. deciding will entitled receive time, bear mind related heard case. Eleven elapsed since enough many changes occurred connection health. would, relevant paid lawsuit can, statute provides, proceed 'in respects civil suits' where damages determined. 8 judgments reversed cause remanded consideration inconsistent opinion. 9 Reversed remanded. 48 Statutes-at-Large 1185, 45 Code KF62 151 et seq. (1964 ed.). (i), 1191, 153, section employers 'failing reach adjustment referred petition either party division full statement supporting data bearing (p), 1192, (p) ed.), provides: 'If within limit order, file resides located principal operating office setting forth briefly premises. Such suit suits, trial prima facie therein stated *. empowered, governing actions law, make enter judgment, writ mandamus otherwise, set aside Board.' 192 F.Supp. 882, 198 402. written reported. 622.

Classification Label: 8