Court Opinion

ID: 9419729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:51:16.447155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:20.233411
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Rutledge,
dissenting in part.
I agree that the District Court should retain jurisdiction of the cause pending interpretation of the agreements in the procedure provided by the Railway Labor Act for submitting such questions to the Adjustment Board. Section 77 (n) of the Bankruptcy Act was not intended, I think, to give the District Court jurisdiction to determine whether a “change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions” within the meaning of § 6 has, in fact, taken place. Its sole effect is to require a bankruptcy court to follow the procedure set up by the Railway Labor Act.
In my opinion, however, petitioners are entitled to immediate temporary relief, pending the determination of the Adjustment Board, in order to assure compliance with § 6, if the Board should decide in their favor.
Section 6 enjoins a clear and positive duty on the part of carriers and employees, a duty which is judicially enforceable, since no other remedy is provided.1 The opinion *569of the Court so rules, as I understand it, for otherwise there would be no reason for holding the cause. But if, pending the Board’s determination,2 the change forbidden by § 6 takes place and the Board’s decision turns out to be in favor of the petitioners, the very purpose of § 6 will have been defeated. Its object is to maintain the status quo, pending the expiration of the period provided by the section for allowing the processes of negotiation, mediation and conciliation to have play. It is to prevent *570changes being made until these processes have been exhausted or the prescribed waiting period has expired without bringing them into effect. See Trainmen v. Toledo, P. & W. R. Co., 321 U. S. 50; cf. Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U. S. 711.
The decision of the Board will not restore this rightful status quo for the period required for making its determination, including the time now gone by, or in fact for any later period. The only relief the Board can give is either “an administrative declaratory determination” or an award of money damages, subject to the special provision for judicial review. Although the latter remedy would afford partial vindication of private rights, it does not safeguard the public interest, in accordance with the primary design of § 6.3 And in many cases it may be impossible for a court to effectuate the Board’s decision for the future with adequate restorative measures.4
Accordingly I think the District Court should grant temporary relief to O. R. C., as was done at the beginning of this cause,5 until the rights of the parties have been ascertained and permanent relief is given or denied. Peti*571tioners have made a prima facie case,6 not only for holding the cause pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Adjustment Board but also for temporary injunctive relief pending that decision. Without such relief the public interest will not be adequately protected nor will the court’s jurisdiction be preserved, in the sense of power to afford the full relief required by the policy of the Act.

 Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Clerks, 281 U. S. 548; Virginian R. Co. v. System Federation, 300 U. S. 515; Switchmen’s Union v. National Meditation Board, 320 U. S. 297; General Committee v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 320 U. S. 323, 331.
See text infra as to adequacy of the remedy before the Adjustment Board.

 The situation in this ease is unusual because resort must be had to the Adjustment Board before it can be determined whether the forbidden change has been proposed or has taken place in fact.
Whether the relief sought should be granted depends on whether the Adjustment Board finds that the 1943 contract with B. R. T., or action taken thereunder, constitutes a “change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions” within the meaning of § 6 or one in “the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions of its employees, as a class as embodied in agreements,” except as provided in § 6, within the meaning of § 2, Seventh. Cf. also § 77 (n) of the Bankruptcy Act. This in turn will depend upon the effect which the Board finds should be given to the prior agreements, including not only the 1940 contract with O. R. C., but the basic agreements of 1927 and 1928 with O. R. C. and B. R. T., respectively, as affected by the establishment of switching limits in 1929 and other matters bearing upon the interpretation of the written contracts and the rights of the parties.
Only after the Adjustment Board has acted can it be known whether a change in violation of § 6 was proposed or brought about through the 1943 agreement. If petitioners are correct in their view of their rights on the merits, and the Adjustment Board so finds, the 1943 contract and the action taken under it were in violation of § 6. If respondents are right as to the effect of the agreements made prior to 1943, and the Board so finds, no “change” in violation of § 6 was brought about by the 1943 contract, which in that event becomes merely declaratory of preexisting rights. The crucial issue is whether the 1943 agreement “changed,” that is, altered the terms of preexisting contractual rights or merely declared them, a question which only the Adjustment Board can decide, initially at any rate, since it requires interpretation of existing collective agreements, not the making of new or different ones. Cf. Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U. S. 711.

 In providing a waiting period before final rupture, with leeway for mediation and conciliation to work, § 6 has the obvious purpose not only to prevent infringement of private rights but more especially to save the public from possible disruption of service. See note 4.

 Although only five jobs are involved in this jurisdictional dispute, another may involve 500 or 5000. Ordering the reinstatement of any considerable number of men, once they have been wrongfully thrown out, to displace others who have taken their places itself involves the very kind of disruption, or possibility for it, which Congress sought to ward off by the provisions of § 6. And it is common knowledge that strikes involving large numbers may arise from an employer’s adverse action affecting directly only a few employees or even one.

 The court granted a stay order upon filing of the petition which remained in effect until April 5, 1943, when the order of reference to the master was made. Thereafter the trustees made effective the 1943 contract with B. R. T. and, in my opinion, by this action violated § 6.

 The decision of the Court implies that the petitioners’ case is not frivolous. That it is not is borne out by the following facts, among others:
The trustees and B. R. T. do not deny that O. R. C. members had performed the work in question continuously for more than thirty-five years or exclusively until the contract of 1943 with B. R. T. was made and put into effect. They allege no protest against this arrangement until shortly after the 1940 agreement with O. R. C.
In 1929 the carrier established switching limit boundaries. Respondents say the effect of establishing these limits was generally that yardmen, represented by B. R. T., should not perform work outside of them and that roadmen, represented by O. R. C., should not perform work within them. The five drills in question lie within the switching limits. 0. R. C. contends that the fixing of switching limits was not intended to change the previous practice under which road conductors had customarily manned the five drills. It points to the fact that road conductors continued to work on the five drills after the establishment of switching limits and to the further fact that, by the agreement made in 1940 between O. R. C. and the carrier, the latter agreed not to change the then present method of assigning conductors. 0. R. C. also maintains that the basic agreements, taken in conjunction with the 1929 establishment of switching limits, did not prescribe territorial priorities, but merely provided for rates of pay to be applicable within and without the limits established.