Court Opinion

ID: 9448757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:44:31.255541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:32.891804
License: Public Domain

MARSHALL, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
With deference to my brothers, I deem the issues raised by the present case to be of such importance that a statement of my dissenting views is necessary. Because the “Section 6” and contract termination notices served by Rutland were also issued by most of the Class I railroads in the country, the factual pattern before us is of national importance. Much of what the majority says seems to me not only well put but also quite correct. I do not disagree with their treatment of the venue problem, with most of their general statements as to when a strike is legal or illegal under the Railway Labor Act, or with the assertion that a “labor, dispute” is involved in this case. I strongly disagree, however, with the result they reach and would suggest that much of what they say is actually inconsistent with that result.
The majority correctly states the principal issue to be whether the dispute between the parties was “major” or “minor” under the Railway Labor Act. That proposition, however, is of such generality that it fails to pose the problems we must solve in any meaningful fashion. The legal dispute here involves two questions. First, what procedures must a party to a collective agreement in the railroad industry follow in order to terminate that agreement or any part thereof?1 Second, the termination having been accomplished, under what circumstances may the parties resort to economic force?
My position, briefly summarized, is that Rutland voluntarily terminated so much of the collective agreement as might be said to govern the establishment of new runs and the merging or elimination of crew terminals and, then, believing that it could not secure what it desired through the normal processes of collective bargaining, violated the plain mandates of the Railroad Labor Act’s major dispute procedures by unilaterally changing certain runs and terminals. This action should have been enjoined by the District Court. It does not follow that a strike to prevent such changes was justifiable, however, since, in my view at least, a remedy in the courts was available to the union and should have been resorted to. I would, therefore, have enjoined both Rutland and the Brotherhoods from engaging in self-help until exhaustion of the major dispute procedures.
The majority’s conclusion is radically different. They hold explicitly that the agreement insofar as it dealt with the establishment of runs and terminals was not terminated and sub silentio that there was in fact no way in which to terminate it. They enjoin the union’s use of economic force, therefore, pending exhaustion of the drawn-out minor dispute procedures and leave Rutland free to act unilaterally.
The words “major” and “minor” have no intrinsic legal significance. They are derived from the terminology of railway *43industrial relations and are used judicially merely as a shorthand way of referring to a distinction incorporated in the structure of the Railway Labor Act. The statute, itself, however, does not use the words. The distinction is of legal significance solely because the Act establishes mutually exclusive mandatory procedures to be followed in resolving two different kinds of disputes.
Disputes involving grievances or contract interpretation questions are to be handled under Section 3 First.2 Under that provision either party may submit the dispute to the appropriate Adjustment Board for a “final and binding” decision on the meaning of the contract. A strike over disputes properly submitted to the Adjustment Board may be enjoined in order to protect the Board’s jurisdiction. Brotherhood of R. Trainmen v. Chicago River & Ind. R. Co., 353 U.S. 30, 77 S.Ct. 635, 1 L.Ed.2d 622 (1957). And, in appropriate circumstances, the enjoining court may condition the strike injunction upon preservation of the status quo by management pending final adjudication by the Board. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 363 U.S. 528, 80 S.Ct. 1326, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 (1960).3
But labor contracts in the railroad industry do not continue in force in perpetuum unless both parties so desire. Like many familiar agreements, they are subject to termination and change, a process which, when invoked by a party,4 is characterized as a major dispute.
While the Act provides for compulsory arbitration of minor disputes, it leaves the resolution of major disputes to free collective bargaining and the use of economic force subject only to certain mandatory procedural requirements. Section 6 5 governs the procedure to be followed in changing agreements affecting working conditions. Any party desiring such a change must give 30 days written notice to the other party. Either party may then request the services of the Mediation Board or the Board may step in on its accord under Section 5.6 Under Section 6 “rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered” until final action by the Mediation Board under Section 5. Section 5 prohibits changes in “rates of pay, rules, or working conditions or established practices” until 30 days after the Board has notified the parties of the failure of its mediatory efforts. Section 10 7 empowers the President to establish an emergency board after the failure of mediation efforts and provides “no change, except by agreement, shall be made by the parties to the controversy in the conditions out of which the dispute arose” until thirty days after the Board makes its report to the President. The legislative history indicates that when the rail unions and carriers agreed upon these provisions, the unions surrendered their right to strike pending exhaustion of major dispute procedures in exchange for a statutory provision restraining management from disturbing the status quo.8 These' “freeze”9 or “cooling-off”10 provisions have been held to be enforceable by the *44courts. Grand International Brotherhood, etc. v. Morphy, 109 F.2d 576 (2 Cir., 1940); cert. denied 310 U.S. 635, 60 S.Ct. 1078, 84 L.Ed. 1404 (1940); Railroad Yardmasters v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 224 F.2d 226 (3 Cir., 1955).
No provision is made, however, for the compulsory resolution of substantive issues in major disputes, and the parties are free to resort to economic force after exhausting the procedures. Chicago River, supra, at fn. 24; Order of R. Telegraphers v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 362 U.S. 330, 80 S.Ct. 761, 4 L.Ed.2d 774 (1960). See also Chicago, Rock Island and Pac. R. Co. v. Switchmen’s Union, 292 F.2d 61 (2 Cir., 1961).
Within this legal framework, I fail to grasp how the factual pattern here presents the difficulties encountered by the majority. On November 2,1959, Rutland served notice on the Brotherhoods “under our existing agreements and pursuant to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act” that it wanted a new contract, “effective January 1, 1960,” which would in effect eliminate all “agreements, rules, regulations, interpretations and practices, however established,” restricting the carrier’s right to establish new runs and which would also explicitly “ [establish a rule to provide that * * * [t]he carrier shall have the right to establish, move, consolidate and abolish crew terminals * * * with the right to operate any * * * run * * * through established crew terminals.” This was a 30 day notice of termination of all contractual provisions, explicit or implied, relating to the establishment of new runs and crew terminals. Rut-land, by thus invoking Section 6 of the Act, and the termination provisions of the contracts, notified the Brotherhoods that it desired not only to terminate all restrictive provisions, practices and even all ambiguities as to the establishment of new runs but also that it wanted an explicit provision incorporated in a new agreement which would bestow upon it the absolute prerogative to change crew terminals. Rutland thereby voluntarily terminated the old agreement to this extent and invoked the major dispute procedures. Having invoked them, presumably it was bound by them.
Nevertheless, on September 8, 1960, before exhaustion of the major dispute procedures, Rutland announced that it intended unilaterally to establish new runs thereby changing certain crew terminals and to operate these runs through other established terminals. Since the major dispute procedures require that the carrier not change “working conditions,” “established practices,” or the “conditions out of which the dispute arose” until their exhaustion, Rutland’s action was a plain violation of the Railway Labor Act.11 The Brotherhoods called a strike *45because of the unilateral changes announced by Rutland and were enjoined by the District Court.
In reviewing that action, I should have thought the principal question would be whether the union was free to strike against Rutland’s illegal actions or whether the conduct of both parties in derogation of the major dispute procedures must be enjoined. On balance, I would have adopted the latter course both on the grounds that resort to the courts is generally preferable to this kind of self help12 and on the further grounds that the “cooling off” policies of the major dispute procedures cannot be effectuated by allowing both parties simply to do away with the Act. These problems have become irrelevant, however, for the majority has concluded that the dispute is minor and must be resolved by an Adjustment Board determination of the meaning of the old agreement.
One reason asserted by the majority in support of this result seems to be that the Section 6 notice was not sufficiently broad to cover the matters in dispute. Two quotations from the notice are set out, apparently to demonstrate that it was intended only to do away with restrictions on the managerial prerogative to establish new runs. The majority then finds there are no explicit restrictions in the agreements, and, therefore, the Section 6 notice does not encompass this dispute. But if all this is true, why did Rutland serve notices pursuant to Section 6 and the various contracts in the first place? Plainly, Rutland’s purpose was to eliminate the ambiguities13 in the agreement which the majority admits exist and in fact relies upon in sending this case to the Adjustment Board. I have not found any language in the statute or policy behind it which would prohibit or nullify this use of Section 6 in the manner suggested by the majority. I believe that clarification through collective bargaining of ambiguous contractual provisions is a most laudable purpose and should be encouraged rather than hampered by the courts. Moreover, the majority inexplicably ignores paragraph B(l) of the notice. That paragraph explicitly notifies the unions that Rutland seeks to “Establish a rule to provide that * * * 1. The Carrier shall have the right to establish, move, consolidate and abolish crew terminals * * * ”. Surely a request to incorporate a comprehensive clause such as this must be said to change an ambiguous contract or an agreement containing no such explicit provision. That paragraph B(l) encompasses the dispute here is plainly evident, for the majority itself states the present “disagreement * * * [is] whether the management of the railroad had the right to * * * change crew terminals.”
The majority states the “major-minor” distinction in the following fashion:
“It is a major dispute if the present agreements between the railroad and the brotherhoods contain express provisions contrary to the position *46taken by the railroad or if the clear implication of these agreements is inconsistent with the railroad’s proposals. It is a minor dispute if there is a clearly governing provision in the present agreements, although its precise requirements are ambiguous; * *
While this might be a correct statement of the law in the absence of a Section 6 notice, I would suggest that it is entirely erroneous once such a notice has been served. The majority opinion itself at one point concedes that major disputes commence with notice under Section 6. Moreover, it must be so, for under the Railway Labor Act a party is free to terminate an ambiguous contract in the hope of making it explicit without going to an Adjustment Board for a determination of its meaning. This is precisely what Rutland attempted to do. The reliance placed by Rutland and the majority upon the collective agreement is utterly inconsistent with the Section 6 notice, for Rutland intended by that notice to terminate and do away with the very same contractual provisions which are now so strenuously relied upon. And, the inconsistency of relying on these provisions is magnified since the notice was also based upon the termination clauses of the same' agreements. I dare say that if this were a commercial contract with a 30 day termination provision, we would not show such solicitude for one who invoked the termination procedures but later claimed the agreement was still in effect when the other party refused to meet his demands for a new contract.
But the significance of today’s decision transcends the immediate and hopefully temporary problems of the Rutland Railroad and its employees. There is much in the majority opinion which implies there cannot be a major dispute if the relevant agreement contains an “ambiguous,” but “clearly governing”, provision, regardless of whether a Section 6 notice has been served. The quotation in the preceding paragraph seems to be to that effect. Along the same lines, reliance is placed upon “a number of cases involving disagreements similar to the one in the present case, [in which] courts have classified the disputes as minor.” In all but one, however, there was no effective Section 6 notice and, therefore, no effective termination of the agreement.14 The Railway Labor Act establishes a system of free collective bargaining, Section 6 being an integral part of that system. It is designed to allow either party to terminate an agreement, whether or not its meaning is clear, and bargain freely over new provisions subject only to certain procedural requirements. To hold that Section 6 is rendered inoperative if there is an ambiguous, but clearly governing, provision in the present agree*47ments is to give it an effect precisely opposite to that intended and to deprive the parties of their right to bargain freely.
The dilemma created by the majority opinion is neatly posed when it says, “[T]he brotherhoods, upon the expiration of the existing agreements, may require the railroad to bargain” over the issues in dispute. But the only manner in which the existing agreements may “expire” is through notice pursuant to Section 6 by one of the parties, since none of these contracts contains a fixed expiration date.15 Presumably, if the union had, on November 2, 1959, issued a Section 6 notice stating its desire to “eliminate all agreements, rules, regulations, interpretations and practices, however established, allomng the carrier to establish new runs without the union’s cow-sent” and to “establish a rule that the carrier shall not have the right to establish, move, consolidate crew terminals or to operate any runs through established crew terminals, without the union’s cow-sent,” the majority’s ruling would not vary.16 Yet that is not significantly different from Order of R. Telegraphers v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 363 U.S. 330, 80 S.Ct. 761, 4 L.Ed.2d 774 (1960), in which the Supreme Court held that a major dispute existed. While the majority is “not entirely certain” as to the basis of that decision, I would submit the governing consideration must have been the Section 6 notice.17 Otherwise, the case would have been indistinguishable from the Court’s decision in Chicago River, supra, and all the other cases which have followed it. E. g. cases cited in note 14, supra. The most profitable inquiry for the majority is not how to distinguish Chicago and N. W. Ry. from this case but how to distinguish it from all the cases finding minor disputes. Viewed from that perspective, the “uncertainty” vanishes. In any case, Butte, A. & Pac. Ry. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, 268 F.2d 54 (9 Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 864, 80 S.Ct. 122, 4 L.Ed.2d 104 (1959) is precisely on point and explicitly supports my view of the statute. I do not grasp how it may be disposed of simply by asserting the facts are different.18 As for Hilbert v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 290 F.2d 881 (7 Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 900, 82 S.Ct. 174, 7 L.Ed.2d 96 (1961), relied on by the majority, I would decline to follow it since it also seems based on the erroneous notion that Section 6 is inoperative when the existing agreement is ambiguous.
My reading of the statute and of subsequent judicial interpretations leads me to believe the majority has adopted a *48view which does much violence not only to our policies of free collective bargaining but also to traditional notions of freedom of contract. I must, therefore, dissent.

. This seems to me to be the principal issue in the case since I would agree that if the relevant contractual provisions had not been terminated, the decision would be clearly governed by Brotherhood of R. Trainmen v. Chicago R. & I. Ry., 353 U.S. 30, 77 S.Ct. 635, 1 L.Ed.2d 622 (1957).

. 45 U.S.C.A. § 153 First.

. Even though the majority believes a minor dispute is involved, it does not discuss the applicability of that decision to this case. Since I cannot agree this is a minor dispute, I shall also forgo discussion.

. Presumably, a palpable breach of contract would be in violation of Section 6, see note 5, infra, and accompanying text, which requires 30 days written notice of an intended change in agreements and would therefore also create a major dispute. Cf. Railroad Yardmasters of America v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 224 F.2d 226 (3 Cir. 1955).

. 45 U.S.C.A. § 156.

. 45 U.S.C.A. § 155.

. 45 U.S.C.A. § 160.

. 67 Cong.Rec. 4524, 4588. See also comment, Enjoining Strikes and Maintaining the Status Quo in Railway Labor Disputes, 60 Colum.L.Rev. 381, 388 (1960).

. Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R. Co. v. Switchmen’s Union, 292 F.2d 61, 66 (2 Cir. 1961).

. 67 Cong.Rec. 4648, 4650.

. Arguably, these provisions might be read merely to mean that the collective agreement, with all its ambiguities, is to remain in force pending exhaustion of the major dispute procedures. Under that view, minor disputes could occur during that period and might involve the subject matter of the major dispute. In such a case, however, the union would still be free to strike over the issue after exhaustion of the major dispute procedures. A contrary holding would mean that ambiguous terms in a collective agreement would not be subject to change through collective bargaining until their meaning had been determined by the Adjustment Board. This would effectively lengthen the term of the contract beyond the intentions of the parties and would prohibit clarification through collective bargaining of those contractual provisions which need it most. It would, moreover, seem directly contrary to the intent of Section 6 which contemplates the proposal of changes in agreements whenever the parties desire and which contains no provisions restraining its use until an Adjustment Board decision has been rendered on the meaning of the old contract.
In any case, the preferable view is that changes in existing conditions which are the subject of a major dispute are forbidden whether or not they are arguably authorized by the collective agreement. The “freeze” provisions carefully avoid reference to the collective agreement, but emphasize “working conditions” (Section 6), “established practices” (Section 5), and “conditions out of which the dispute arose” (Section 10). This is in contrast to other parts of the Act, and, indeed, Section 6 itself, which refer *45directly to the “agreement” when necessary. Moreover, the legislative history of the statute shows the “freeze” provisions were intended to enforce a “cooling off” period upon both labor and management in the railroad industry. See Note 10, supra. But this policy cannot be effectuated if management is allowed to take advantage of an ambiguous contract during the “freeze” to make changes in working conditions relating to the dispute. Such action is far more likely to warm up the dispute than cool it off.

. Cf. Bakery Sales Drivers Local 33, v. Wagshal, 333 U.S. 437, 68 S.Ct. 630, 97 L.Ed. 79 (1948); Dorchy v. Kansas, 272 U.S. 306, 47 S.Ct. 86, 71 L.Ed. 248 (1926); but see Mastro Plastics Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 350 U.S. 270, 76 S.Ct. 349, 100 L.Ed. 309 (1956).

. Existing ambiguities in a document cannot be cured by the continued silence of the parties. Obviously, therefore, Rut-land’s notice contemplated insertion of new provisions which would either affirmatively establish its prerogatives or would direct the Adjustment Board to follow a rule of construction which would prevent “interpretations” from infringing on these rights. Either course would require a new provision and a “change” in the existing agreements.

. In the Matter of Hudson & M. R. Co., 172 F.Supp. 329 (S.D.N.Y.1959), aff’d per curiam sub nom. Stichman v. General Grievance Comm. of the Bhd. of R. Trainmen, 267 F.2d 941 (2 Cir. 1959) cert. denied 363 U.S. 843, 80 S.Ct. 1608, 4 L.Ed.2d 1727 (1960) (proposal to amend the agreement withdrawn); Norfolk & P. B. L. R. v. Brotherhood of R. Trainmen, 248 F.2d 34 (4 Cir. 1957) cert. denied 355 U.S. 914, 78 S.Ct. 343, 2 L.Ed.2d 274 (1958) (no section 6 notice) ; Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 266 F.2d 335 (5 Cir. 1959) rev’d on other grounds 363 U.S. 528, 80 S.Ct. 1326, 4 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1960) (no section 6 notice) ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. United R. Workers, 271 F.2d 87 (2 Cir. 1959) vacated and remanded on other grounds 364 U.S. 278, 80 S.Ct. 1609, 4 L.Ed.2d 1719 (1960) (no section 6 notice). Of the cases cited by the majority, only Hilbert v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 290 F.2d 881 (7 Cir. 1961) cert. denied 368 U.S. 900, 82 S.Ct. 174, 7 L.Ed.2d 96 (1960) involved a Section 6 notice. I would submit that decision is erroneous.
The majority omits one decision involving a dispute “similar to the one in the present case.” Order of R. Telegraphers v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 363 U.S. 330, 80 S.Ct. 761, 4 L.Ed.2d 774 (1960), A Section 6 notice was involved in that oase, and the Supreme Court found it to be a major dispute. See Note 18,. infra, and accompanying text.

. Each contract provided that it was to remain in effect until changed in accordance with the Railway. Labor Act. The the thrust of the majority’s decision, therefore, is to eliminate the possibility, of termination and to restrict the freedom of the parties to bargain collectively.

. Since there is no explict grant to the carrier of these rights and there is an ambiguous, but clearly governing, provision, the majority’s criteria for determining that a minor dispute exists would be satisfied. Surely the fact that the carrier gave the notice here does not serve to distinguish the two cases. That factor, if anything, would help the brotherhoods.

. The majority is correct in stating that the magnitude of the effect upon working conditions is not the governing factor. The statute itself does not use the words major and minor and, therefore, provides no standards for judging the magnitude. Adoption of such a test would engulf us in sterile inquiries such as when does a little dispute on a big railroad become a big dispute on a little railroad. On the one hand, it might tip the tactical balance by allowing management the protection of the equity arm of the federal courts so long, as it bit off a little at a time and did not attempt to get everything in one gulp. On the other hand, a literal application of major and minor might encourage the unions to strike over every dispute simply, to show how big it was.

. Butte differs from our ruling in Stich-man, note 14 supra, as to the effect of a withdrawal of a Section 6 notice. The notice here, however, was not withdrawn.