Court Opinion

ID: 9421795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:59:54.519313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:32.462525
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Black,
with whom Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Douglas concur,
dissenting.
I would affirm the action of the District Court and the Court of Appeals in dismissing this petition for declaratory judgment and injunction. I agree, of course, that, the provisions of the Railway Labor Act authorizing railroad workers to revoke their previously executed “checkoff” agreements “after the expiration of one. year” grant workers a right which neither Union, nor Railroad, nor both together, can take away in whole or in part. I am of the opinion, however, that the collective bargaining agreement between the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (B. R. T.) and the Southern Pacific Company provides a procedure which substantially aids in the preservation of the employees’ statutory right to revoke their assignments at will. Since , the checkoff provisions of the Act were not designed primarily to aid the Railroad, it is natural that the governing contract between Railroad and Union should relieve the Railroad, as much as possible, of burdens and expenses. Necessarily* Congress in authorizing checkoff arrangements contemplated that they could be administered in a businesslike manner, without imposition of undue burden on the railroads. It seems plain to me that the provision of the contract requiring that revocation be made through the B. R. T. to the Railroad, on forms supplied by the B. R. T. is, on the *339whole, just and practical as applied to the Railroad, the Union and its members.
But in any event, the circumstances existing here call for no exercise of a court’s discretionary power either to enter a declaratory judgment or to grant an injunction. This suit was filed April 12, 1957 — 10 days after B. R. T. in response to petitioner’s letter terminating his membership and revoking his Wage Assignment Authorization mailed to petitioner for his signature the revocation form provided for in the collective bargaining contract. At the time of filing suit petitioner had no more than a highly questionable claim for one month’s dues — several dollars. He also had in his possession the B. R. T. form which would have been recognized both by the B. R. T. and the Railroad. Petitioner therefore could have avoided any future deductions, and any possible damage to himself, merely by signing and mailing that form. And he could have recovered the one month’s dues, if illegally deducted, by suit against the Railroad.
Equity’s extraordinary power to grant injunctive relief to prevent irreparable damage can hardly be sustained by the proof in this case; plainly enough petitioner could not show irreparable damage, and, in fact, did not even allege it. Similarly, he could not claim he lacked an adequate remedy at law. Nor would declaratory relief be appropriate, for as we have said:
“The declaratory judgment procedure may be resorted to only in the sound discretion of the Court and where the interests of justice will be advanced and an adequate and effective judgment may be rendered.” Alabama Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U. S. 450, 462.
The question wé finally have here, therefore, is whether the District Court and the Court of Appeals should be reversed because they refused to use the court’s process *340in a controversy which, in reality, is between two unions over which one’s printed form shall be used to revoke an. assignment. Perhaps judicial history can produce no other case in which the extraordinary relief the Court now orders granted has been' accorded under comparable circumstances. For any possible injury .to petitioner would have been avoided except for his stubborn refusal to sign a simple, 11-line form identical to one he had already signed. The federal courts have too much work to do in adjudicating real, genuine, meaningful cases or controversies to have their time consumed, in consideration of trivial. disputes like this one. I would affirm the decisions below.