Brief on Behalf of Respondent, St Louis San Francisco Railway Co — Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Howard

eo

‘

°

\

_— *

e

ee

.

.

“9

' °

’

i

=?

;

+

’

fe

a

«

:

“is:

5

2»

Gree

;

IN THE

OCTOBER TERM, i951.

ba No. 458, SE Ue EA

N - ) ‘ - eeweeeee

sire COURT OF. THE wNTE STATES.

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD D TRAINMEN, an Unincorpo-

rated Association, and C. 0. CARNAHAN, General

Chairman, Brotherhood of Railtdad Trainmen:

Petitioners, . 3

ve

SIMON L, HOWARD, SR., and ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO

, RAILWAY COMPANY, a*Corporation,

: Respondents

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals.

BRIEF

On Behalf of Respondent, St, Louis-San Francisco

, ee ‘Railway Company.

% .

& 2

: EY

a Fy . -

4 4

*

EUGENE G. NAHLER,

JAMES L. HOMIRE,

— CORNELIUS H. SKINKER, JR,

ALVIN J. BAUMANN, ..

St. Louis, Missouri,

e ; Counsel for Respondent, St. Louis-

San Francisco Railway Company.

ee

for the Eighth Circuit. SPN gas

pte ra Yorn amare a ren areca a A ee NT RP

Sr. Lovis Law Puwrine Co., 415 North — Street. CE ntral 4477.

g

i

® e

‘ .

° .

2

eget) a ° -

a yy?

> i A

y &

ai

>. - ‘

; ;

e

Naa SM .

-— . »

OP Pees

er me

INDEX.

: Page

Opinions vrai PS PO eee ieee kes ieeewases hx ke a

EE ISAS: ARPT OTTO OCORONES: «

_Statutes involved..... eeaeees eekes jesveceeseescusss 2

- Questions involv ee ep ace ie eae e Uk ue.

“Btatowment 6.624260: inbet hie peet eae xe ‘Seve veteeees 2

Summary of argument....... ttqewees teeees eee eee

man cae rag aA Wh aay se lewiee oa pg Bean ce

me ‘This is a jurisdictional dispute and is’not jus--

‘ticiable ; Sey | Oe BAG GRE eon? Ge Dy ee -a i ee

mee The decision 6f the District Court should not be :

affirmed .........: eee eee a

EEA Ro pe rer ae me cette eeeees vere 1B

Appendix Siesta Lavish aaa TEE Teese eee 15

} Railway Labor Act, 48 Stat. 1185, 45 U. Ss. +o secs.

151 2 2 ares 15

Sec. 1 (a), 45 U: 8.-C., See. So Ce ee area 15

See. 2, First, 45 U. S. C., See. 152, First.......- ‘ite ae

Sec. 2, Seventh, 45 U.S. C., See. 152, Seventh...... 15

- See. 3; First, 45 U.S. C., Sec. 153, First............ 16

Sec. 5, First, 45 U. S. C., Sec. 155, First....000..... 17

ee ae UC, Wee 18... 8. eee. bon

“Cases Cited.

Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen y. National Media-

ye I SE CRIED, SUE AUD, 6 occ css oweereee vee 6-0 7

Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. National Media-

tion Board, 135 F. (2) 780.0... 0.0... ec eee eee eee oe

il

Brotherhood of Ry. & S. S. Clerks v. Na shville, C. &

St. L. Ry. Co. (6th Cir.), 94 F. (2) 97, 99..«..... One

< General Committee, B. of L. E., v. Missouri-Kansas-

TexagR. Op, TOG. ME, 6 ns ceviceicss evieess 8,9

Order of Railway Conductors v. National Mediation

Board, 113 F. (2) 531, EPPO TRA e Soy They es 7

Pitney v. Order of Railway Conduietoinss 326 U.S. x

RE Sics cis eoeun use e be ‘soe 0 8, 8, 9, 10

Shipley v. Pittsburg & L. EK. ™ Co., 83 F. Suppl. 722,

elie Pe Pu: Seater eA Vere Pea a a

a

- Singer Manufacturing Company v. Wright, 141 U. S.

696 Fo cai gna tes aMaritiglate Ra kaw ata oar wh ata creel eee a

Slocum v. dasa, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U. §. 239. .4, 8,10

Southern’ Pac. Co. v. Joint Council Dining. Car Em-

_, ployes, 165 F. (2) 26, cer. den. 333 U.S. 838........ 11

Standard OiL Co. v. United States, 283 U.S. 163....60.. 12

Switehmen’s Union y. National Mediation Board, 320

>

U3 vie $01 ee ia ewe eee eee eee ae oe Oo “Saat ee |

Templeton \ v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 84 F.Supp. —~.

162, 170, 181 re (2) 527, cer. den. 340 U. S. 2 RR Se

Vi irginian Railwa ay Co. v. System Federation, 300 U.S

988, $e uenas Peowak ee te Cu Server ee Peseeverkew 7

Statutes Cited.

“siatiwar Labor Act, 48 Stat. 1185, 45 U. S. . sees.

. 151 et seq.:

* See. 1 (a), pert < 151 (a) bard ania rire —

See. 2, First, 45 U.S. C., Sec. 152, First.......:.. 4

Sec. 2, Seventh, 45 U. S, C.,.Sec. 152, Seventh.... 6,8

Sec. 3, First, 45 U. S.C., Sec. 153, First.......... 11

See. 5, First;45 U.S. C., See. 155, First Neca Pete > Siam

See. 6, 45 U. S. C., See. ES traces ee eae ae eee 6,8

IN THE

_ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,

No. 458. ay

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, an Unincorpo-

_ rated Association, and’ C. 0. CARNAHAN, General

Chairman, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen,

Petitioners,

ve

SIMON L, HOWARD, SR., and ST, LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO

we RA AY COMPANY, a Corporation, :

Respondents. .

4

; ‘On’ Writ of Certiorari, to the United States Court of Appeals .

for ‘the Eighth. Circuit.

vw ~

| BRIEF. 2

On Behalf of Respondent, St. Louis-San Francisco

Railway Company.

4

~

eee OPINIONS BELOW.

The memorandum opinion of the District Court (R. 267)

\ is reported at 72 F’. Supp. 695. The opinion of the Court

of Appeals (R. 339) is reported at 191 F. 7) 442.

fe . JURISDICTION. ion,

The jurisdiction of this court, under Title 98 U. 8. C.,

Section 12: 54 (1), is conceded.

e 4

a

,

STATUTES INVOLVED. | xe

_Statutes involved are the Railway taker Act, 48 Stat.

1185, 45 U. S. C., sees. 151% et seq. Pertinent provisions are

printed in ee hereto. «¢

2

QUESTIONS INVOLVED. ~—

1, Whether the matter in issue here is-a jurisdictional 7

dispute and is justiciable by the court.

2. Whetkér ‘the decision of the District Court should be

-afirmed in toto.

3 : *

a yas STATEMENT.

4

In por to fully explain its contentions herein Carriers’ e

feels it is necessary to enlarge upon_the facts in the case

set out in brief for petitioners.. = y

For over 40 years train porters have been known as a

separate class of employes (R. 284). They were unor-

ganized and without representation as a group .prior to

1921. Since that time they have ‘been treated by the Car-.

rier as a separate class of employes for representation

purposes (R. 285-286).

It is known that seniority lists for brakemen have been

in existence on the Carrier’s lines for a long period of time,

believed to be at least 60 years (R. 230). The present con-

tract between Brotherhood: and Carrier has been in effect, ,

so far as brakemen are concerned, since “March 15, 1920, to

which amendments have been made (R. 231).

1 Respondent, St. Logis-San ped Scinco Railway Company, wi!l be here-

inafter referred to as “Carrier.” Respondent, Simon L: Howard, Sr., will

be hereinafter referred to as “Train Porters,”

Petitgoner, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, will be hereinafter re-

’ ferred as “Brotherhood. ” Petitioner, C. O. Carnahan, ete., will be here-

inafter ar A to as “Petitioner Carnahan.”

S

“4

—~

ata RAE

For this period of more than 40 years train. porters, in .

accordance with custom or orders of their employer, per-

formed some or all of the duties of head-end brakemen on

passenger drains; and, in addition, they also were required.

to. keep the coaches clean in transit and assist the passen-

gers off and on trains (R. 984). - | es

Cd

Seskemun ‘serving as head-end brakemen | on” passenger

trains, are not required to clean the cars or. assist’ passen-

gers (R. 284). :

Undér date of cHecdinbes 21, 1945, “Brotherhood eircu-

lated a strike ballot among its members employed inf train

and yard! service of Carrier. This strike ballot covered

twelve causes of. complaint and were denominated as

cases."’ -Among these was Case No. 3, described as ‘a

complaint by the Brotherhood ‘‘against train porters be-

ing used to perform the duties of brakemen on passenger

é trains’’ on the lines of Carrier (R. 192-194, 287).

) eder date of January 3, 1946, Petitioner Carfahan ad-

vised the Carrier that a strike of yard and road service

employes under the jurisdiction of Brotherhood would be.

effective at 6:00 p. ma, Sunday, January 6, 1946 -(R. 196-«

197, 287).

e

On January 5. 1946, the President of the United states

issued an executive order creating an Emergency — oard,

-pursuant to Section 10 of the Railway Labor Act. Such 7

Emergency Board held public heayings commencing on

January. 11, 1946, and concluding on January 18, 1946

(R: 198). | .

Under date, of January 24, 1946, the Reena Board

rendered its report and recommendations (R. 212-219).

The Emergency Board took notice of the decision of this

court in- Order of Railw 2 Cghductors y. Pitriey, decided

January 18, 1946, 326 U.S. 561 (R. 216-217). It commented

>

q

wax

/ >

pe er

ee",

on the similarity of the basic factual situation and issues

in that case and those presented to it. It suggested that

there was available to the parties an administrative tri-

bunal created. by Congress and that it was clearly the i in-

tent and purpose of the Railway Labor Act that disputes

of such character be determined there. - It advised, refer- -

ring to Cases Nos. 3 and-10 of the remaining 11 eases on .

the strike ballot, that ‘‘all of these .cases should ,be |

processed for submission to the Adjustment Board unless

settled on the preperty”’ (R. 218). Brotherhood. indicated

they would not follow the recommendations of the Board

and that the strike as originally set was not cancelled, but

merely postponed (R. 1: 28).

i

There ‘after, negotiations were rewinind between oliee

: and Brotherhood on February 5, 1946, and continued to

February 8, inclusive, with casey faecal ences .being held

on February 18 and 19, 1946 (R. 2 20).

Ou F ars nary 22, 1946, Petitioner Carnahan advised: “ar:

rier that “withdrawal timé for members of my organiza-

tion would be effective 6:00 p.m. de bese de 26, 1966" (R.

ares ae 5

¥ ¢

; Negotiations. ‘were again resumed, and under date of

March 7, 1946, all. twelve- cases on the ‘strike ballot were ° -

settled.” :

The settlement with respect to Case No. 3 read:

“Effective April 1, 1946, the practice of train porters

performing work generally recognized as brakemen’s ’

dwyties will be discontinued. Claims of certain brake- —

men who were “available for the date of: August 2

.2 “The evidence indicated ‘that this contract - was entered into - the

Carrier reluctantly, and as-a result of the strike threats” (R. 287, Find. |

ing of Pact No. 22; Cf. R. 131, 160, 279-280). One the declared pur-

poses or the Railway Labor Act is “To avoid any inte ption to wd

merce or to the operation of any carrier engaged ‘therein” (45 U. "7 a.

15la), and that Act makes it a duty to settle all disputes (45 U.. Cc

152; Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Ca, 339 U. S. 239, 242).

aq

nae’ a

ne

%

» ) and cars, but’are npt required to perform head-end braking duties.

Ft cee ; ' ~

1945, vy here claims have been submitted to be paid”

ag eement made V ith Brotherhood, and A oto that:

“Under this agreement we will, effective April 1,

1946, discontinue all train porter positions. We will

_ employ chair car porters on such trains as in our opin-

~ ion their services are necessary or required” (R. 224-

225). ae :

Carrier had notices posted that bids would be enter-

_ tained for brakemen to apply for head-end braking work

for certain passenger trains Or‘runs”. Those cligible-fér__

these positions were mén holding seniority as brakemen

(R, 43-44;5132). Train Porters received: notices-that they

should turn in their switch keys, fusees and-all their train

equipment pursuant to the disposition of ase No. 3 (R.

45, 49, 50, 5); 333) | on

This action’ was then filed on “March 29, 1946, resulting

in a restraining order prohibiting Carrier from putting

into effect said agréemert of March 7, 1946 (R. 9). Fol-

lowing the issuance of said restraining order; a general

notice was published to all trainmen and yardmen advising

- them of thie restraining order and that such order left the

&

Carrier no choice but to withhold compliance with the —

agreement ' of March 7, 1946, betw een the Carrier and the

Brotherhood (R. 51- ors Eats

Nessie ;

3 Deprivation of train onli of the “head-end braking work” left re-

maining to be performed on passenger ‘trains only duties incident to care

-of passengers and cars en route. Persons in the classification of “chair

car porters” are employed on some trains solely to care for passengers

air

Car Porters” are represented by the same union as “Train Gases" anes

are covered by\the same agreentent; therefore Carrier advised officers of

that union it would employ chair car porters on traine whee it deemed

necessary or required (R. 224). ey

; y

pea SAR

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.

The real issue in this case is whether train porte ers or -

brakemen shall perform the necessary “head-end braking”

_work on Carrier’s passenger trains. - Obviously, it is illogi-

cal and impractical to have two persons doing thé same

work at the same time, such 4s operating the same switch

at the same time. ae ta are not here seeking

merely retention in reel of Carrier, but as-well the

retention of the rig it to continue to perform nee: end -

braking” on Carrier’s passenger trains.

9 “> ‘

* Such issue is a jurisdictional dispute, and; therefore, is

a

ae. justiciable under controlling decisions.

Notwithstanding, the District Court holds that Carrier

was required undét’ the sections 2-Seventh and 6 of the

Railway Labor Act (45 U. S. C., §§ 192-Seventh and 156)

to give rain, Porters 30 days notice before putting the

agreement of March 7,.1946, with Brotherhood into effect.

The 30-day notice requirement is not applicable to juris-

dictional disputes. A determination of whether Carrier

violated the Railway Labor Act in this respect is not

justiciable under Pitney v, Order of Railway Conduetors,

326 U. S. 61. Neither the Act nor the contract with the

‘TP Fein Porters’ union required sttth notice, and further, it ©

ig appears the question was moot. Consequently, Carrier

urges that the decision of the District Court — not

be affirmed in toto. SYR eee oe

/

This Is a Jurisdictional Dispute and Is Not Justiciable. ~

, In, the Statement it is clearly shown that the ‘Train

Porters’’ and the *‘Brakemen’’ each were a separate craft

or class for collective bargaining purposes, and each had

its own collective bargaining agent and contract of em-

ployment with the Carrier covering rates of pay, rules and

ow orking conditions. « re

ae is indisputable that each craft or class was sepa-

rately established and recognized as such in 1934, when

the present Railway Labor Act was enacted. Carrier was

required to recognize each craft as then organized and to

deal with the representative selected* by each such sgisay

and with none other. Order of Railway Conductors vy. Na-

tional Mediation Board, 113 F. (2) 531, 533; Brotherhood of

Railroad Trainmen v. National Mediation Board, 88 F. (2)

757, 760; Brotherhood of Ry. & S. S. Clerks v. Nashville,

~{. & St. L. Ry. Co., 94 F. (2) 97, 99; Virginian Railway Co.

v. System Federation, 300 U. S. 515. P

The Train Porters, for over forty years, have been per-

forming head-en@brakemen’s duties as well as cleaning

cars and assisting passengers (R. 284). For a long period

of time (not specifivally fixed in the record) controversy

_aeristed. between the Brotherhood and Carrier concerning _

~“~the practice of Train Porters performing the head-end

braking work (R, 286).

| Through the subsequent turn of ev ents, Carrier made the

agreement with Brotherhood that the ‘practice of train

porters performing brakemen’ s duties would be discon- —

ee &

tinued.’’ The Train Porters, through this action and some .

preliminary steps, claimed the right to continwie doing such

, work. It appears indisputable to Carrier that the question

- here involved is a jurisdictional dispute. oo

It is, in the words of this court, in General Committee, -

ete., v. Missourt- Kansas-Texas Railrodd Company et al.,

320 U. S: 323, 334-335, ‘‘an asserted overlapping of the in-

terests of two crafts’’ which *‘necessitates a determination

of the point whiere the authority of one craft ends and the —

other begins, or of the zones where they hiave joint au- ”

thority.’’ As such it is not justiciable. Order of Railway

. Conductors v. Pitney, 326 U. S. 561; Slocum» ie ~- Delaware,

. L. & W., 339 U.S. 239.

¢ yA. .— - »

2: Of

‘ at BRL A

The Decision of the District Court Should Not

Be Affirmed,

The District Court. held that (1) it had no jurisdiction to

determine the question whether train porters should be

classified as brakemen and represented by the Brotherhood;

(2) the National Mediation Board had exclusive jurisdic-

tion to determine questions of classification under the Rail-

>y ... way Labor Act; (3) this was a jurisdictional dispute and

-

that Congress had conferred exchisive power on the Na-

tional Railroad Adjustment Board in- such disputes; and

(4) it was the duty of the carriers under their agreement

with the train porters and under sections 2-Seventh and 6

(45 U. S. C., section 152-Seventh and 156) to give train ;

porters thirty days notice (R. 288-289).

The holdings that the matter of classification of train

porters as brakemen was not _justiciable, and that the

National Mediation Board had exclusive jurisdiction, are

sustainable. General Committee, B. of L. E., v. Misseuri-

°

o .

9 —

Kansas-Tetas R.Co., 320 U. S, 323. However, as stated in

Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. National Mediation’ —

Board, 135 F. (2) 780,‘ 784 (coneurring opinion), the Na-

tional Mediation Board’ has no power”

‘‘to decide a jurisdictional dispute merely as such. ‘It

ean do so ‘only as an incident to settling a dispute as to.

who shall represent a craft or class. No such dispute

ts presented. ‘No one questions the right of any repre-

sentative to represent the class or craft itmow repre- -”

sents. No one contends there is a new or separate class

for which a ‘representative should be selected. The.

only dispute is whether certain men, not enough to,

affect the representation of either craft or élass, shall

be represented with the one or with the other; or, pos-

‘1 sibly, whether work now being done by members of:

- one eraft shall be taken from them and given to mem-

_ bers of another, again without affecting the representa-

tion of either.” Consequently, ‘the Board rightly held:

that it had no power to determine the dispute, and the

a ate affirming this should. be sustained. "

Carrier is in aecord with thé holding that the shatter in- .

volved is a jurisdictional dispute. See point I of Argu-

ment. F has

With respect'to holding No. 4, that the Carrier was re-

quired to give thirty days notice to the train porters under |

the Railway Labor Act and its contract with ther, (1) the

court was without jurisdiction to determine that question; |

(2) no requirement of the Act or tl® contract required

such notice; and (3) any questions: concerning. the same

were moot, .

In Order of Railway Conduttors v. Pitney, 326 U. 8. 561,

this court held in a matter of jurisdictional dispute that

: ¢ ‘ i -

4 Cited: General Committee v. M.-K.-T. R. Co., supra, 1. c. 336, footnote

11; Switchmen’s Union y. National Mediation Board, 320 U. 8. 297, 301

ae ° or. 4

—10—' + o

s -

¢

_* exclusive jurisdiction te determine sych dispute was lodged

* in the National Railroad Adjustment Board. This deci-

sion Was strengthened by the subsequent decision of this

court in Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co.; 339 U. S. 2 239.”

In the Pitney , Case; supra, after referring. to, Secfiots

2-Sevyenth and Section 6 of the Act, the court said, LL &

565-667: 2 Bare oe

‘‘Thesé sections make it lear that the only conduct

which would violate: §6 is a change‘ of those working ~

‘conditions which aré ‘embodied’ in agreements. * * *

The court, therefore, _had to interpret these Sontracts

before it could find that §6 had been violated. * * *

| WP have ‘seen’ that inorder to reach a final decision’ °

on. that question the court first had to interpret the -

terms of. O. R. C.’s s collegtive bargaining agreements.

* * * Only after the Adjustment Board acts, but not ©

- until then; can it plainly appear ‘that such relief. is

necessary to insure compliance yith the statute. Un-

til such time, O- R: C! eannot show irreparable loss

and inadequacy of the legal remedy. | The ‘court af

equity should, therefore, in the: exercise of its disere-

tion stay its di ane

°

t is patent that the low ‘er eourt clearly disregarded this .

decision of the Supreme Court in making this determina- o ..

ytion. coun .

oe

This being a jutisdictional dispute; Carrier was not re- ’

quired to give any notice under the Railway Labor Act,

nor under its contract. Jurisdictional disputes arise ut

of the interpretation or application of agreements whieh

are solely within the jurisdiction of the National Railroad

_ Adjustment Board. ee }

Section 2-Seventh of the Act provides that’a carrier may

not “changepthe-rates of pay, rules or working conditions

of its employes as a craft embodied in agreements”’ except

‘in the manner prescribed in such agreements or in See-

*

x : py oe!

6

ve

~¥

@- * ‘ of ri 2 ie

5 / . > *

tion 6 of’ the Act, ‘Beetion 6 provides that carriers and

represengatives of employes shall give at least thirty days

notice of an intended change in agreements ¢ffecting rates

of pay, rules or. working conditions, which notice shall fix -

the time for beginning of eonferenés between. the repre-°

‘sentatives of the interested parties aad which may , ulti-

mately involve the services (

°

‘Changes i in rates of pay, ries or W orking contlitions are

within the” jurisdiction of the Mediation Board [Section

155-First (a), idem. ] and do not come within the jJurisdic-

tion of the National Railroad Adjustment Board.*

Wisthectiin: the contract with the Train Porters’ uni®n

contaims the followi ing:

“Rule 2 23, It is understood sate will be used only

on such trains as theXempany, aaa (R191).

o?

e ,

Carrier, therefore, undér the plain wording of Rule 23

of the agreement, had the right at any time to uSe train |

porters on all, a part of, or none of its trains. Itsaetion

in advising train porters that. their positions w ould: he, dis-

continued was no more than an election, under its contract,

not'to use ‘train_porters on any of its trains, effective April |

- 1, 1946. Consequently, « even under the contract, there was

no change of a.rule embodied in a contract involved, anid,

therefore,. no: obligation *thebeunder. to give thirty days

notice. v.

“F bitbermore, the questions pertinent tg such notice were

moot.’ After the notice w ‘as issued a restraining order was

5 The National. Eutiroad Adjustment Board's jurisdiction is limited to

‘ didputes “growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or ap-

plication of agreements” concerning rates of poy, rules or working e¢on-

ditions (Sec, 153, First (i), idem.). Southern Pac. Co. v. Joint Council

Dining Car Employes, 165 F. (2) 26, cert. den. 323 U. S. 888. That Board

does not have power to change, alter or amend an existing agreement.

Shipley v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co., 83.F. Supp. 722, 759: Templeton

v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 84 F. Supp. 162, 170, 181 F. (2) 527, cer.

den, 340 U. S. 823. : d f-.

« \

_ # °

the. Metetien Board. ~

—12—,,

issued in these proceedings by the District Court. Pursu.

ant to that restraining order, the Carrier did not put intc

effect on April 1, 1946, the agreement of March 7, 1946; it

posted notices advising its employes of the restraining

order and its actions pursuant thereto. It withdrew bulle.

tins of job vacancies addressed to brakemen and permittec

the train porters to continue in their positions. and per

form all their duties thereunder. This situation is paralle

_to that in the.case of Singer Manufacturing Company v

Wright, 141 U. S. 696, involving an attack on a license tay

levied bv the State of Georgia ¢gainst vendors of sew ying

machines. While that case was pending the’ taxes wer

paid, and the court siid, 1.¢..700: ©

ese a ‘the further prosecution of this suit te

enjoin their collection would present only a moot ques

tion, upon which we have neither the right nor th

inclination to ge Sap opinian. _ ee equi

table ground for the relief prayed Ceased with the pay

: "ment of the taxes.’’ (Emphasis supplied.)

pest in Standard Oil Co, v. United Statks, 283 U.S. 163

it was held that in the suit for injungtion under the Sher

man Act questions raised by the Government as to th

validity of agreements between defendants became moo

when the agreements were cancelled by the defendants a

the request of the istrict Court before the ony of th

decree, the court saying, lL. 6. 182:

‘‘As the relief here sought is an injunction, an

hence related only to the future, United States v. Ham

burg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien: Gesellschaft

239 U.S. 466, 475, the alleged validity of such provi

sions has become moot.’’ (Emphasis supplied.)

.-

. “\

CONCLUSION.

B

The controversy in isaye is a jurisdictional dispute,

which is: not + justiciable:” The District Court’s decision

should be reversed insofar as it held that Carrier was re-

quired under the agreement with train porters and under

the Railway Labor Act-to give thirty days notice.

Respectfully submitted, |

EUGENE G. NAHLER,, a

JAMES L. HOMIRE,

CORNELIUS H. SKINKER, JR.,

. ALVIN J. BAUMANN,

. . St. Louis, Missouri,

Counsel for Respondent, St. Louis- San

Francisco Railway Company.

oa

. .

.

.

-

nh

. |

.

=

.

ys

j

.

.

.

o

w

7

—1—

: ae APPENDIX.

Railway Cees Act, Spetion 3 (a); 45 U. S. CG, See.

151 (a)&

‘*The eins of the chapter are: (1) To avoid any_.’

interruption’ to commerce or to the operation of any

carrier engagedl therein; (2) to forbid’ any limitation

upon freedom of association among employees or any

denial, as a condition of employment or otherwise, of.

* the ‘right of employees to join a labor organization;

-(3) to provide for the complete independence of car:

riers and ef employees in the. matter of self-organiza-

tion to carry out the purposes of this chapter; (4) to

provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all

disputes concerning rates ef pay, rules, or working

conditions; (5) to provide for the prompt and orderly

settlement of all disputes growing out of grievances or

out of the interpretation or application of agreements

eov ‘ring rates of pay, shaiegy or working conditions~, -

May 20, 1926, ¢. 347, Seeo2; as added June 21, 1934, i

e. 691, See. 2, 46 Stat. 1186." °°

Railway Labor Act, Section 2; 45 U. S. C., See. 152:

“First It shai be the duty of all carriers, their

offigers, agents, and employees .to exert every reason-

‘able effort to make and maintain agreements concern-

ing rates of pay, - ules, and working conditions,\and to.

settle all ‘disputes, whether arising out of the applica-

tion of such agreements of otherwise, in order to avoid

any interruption to commerce | or to the operation of

any carrier growing out’ of any dispute betw een. the

‘ arrier and the employees thereof.” =

_* * * * * 7 °

“Seventh. No carrier, its officers, or agents shali

‘change the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions

ae

asf . . e /

of its employees, as a class as embodied in agreements

except in the manner prescribed in such agreements.

or in section 6 of this Act.”

Raifway Labor Act, section 3 3, First; 45 U. S. C., See,

153, First:

‘*(h). The said fesresee Board shall be com-

posed of four divisions, whose proceedings shall be

independent of one another, and the said divisions

as well as the number of their members shall be as-

follows: ;

ark ‘‘First Division: To have jurisdiction over disputes

involving train -and- yard-service employees of car-

‘riers; that is, engineers, firemen, hostlers, and outside

hostler helpers, conductors, trainmen,,. aa yard- sérv-

‘ive employees. This division shall consist of ten mem-

bers, five of whom shall be selected and designated by

the carriers and five of whom shall be selected and

designated by the “national labor organizations of the

employees. Z

‘Second Division: To have jurisdiction over dis-

putes involving machinists, boilermakers, blacksmiths,

sheet-metal workers, electrical workers, car men, tbe

helpers and apprentices of all the foregoing, coach

cleaners, powerhous ployees, and railroad’ shop

laborers. This division (shall consist of ten members,

Be five of whom shall be selected by the carriers and five

a4 ’ . by the natignal labor organizations of the employees.

‘*Third Division: To have ‘itrisdiction over disputes

involving station; tower, and ,telegraph employees,

train dispatchers, maintenance-of-way men, clerical

employees, freight handlers, express, station, and store

employees, signal men, sleeping- -car conductors, sleep-

ing-car porters, and maids,and dining-ear employees.

This division shall consist of ten members, five of

whom shall be sélected by the carriers and five by the

national labor organizations of employees. ,

.

vty

= ae

— e

Fourth Division: To have jurisdiction over dis- ah at

putes involving employees of tarriers directly or.in-

directly engaged in trinsportation of. passengers or

_ property by water, and all other employees of carriers

over which jurisdiefi ion is not given to,the «first, sec-

ond, and third divisions- This division shall consist

of six members, three of whom shall be selectad by

the carriers and three by the national labor organiza-

tions of th employees. . :

‘“(i) The disputes between an employee or group

of employees and a carrier or carriers growing. ont of e

‘ grievanees or out of the interprefation or application

of agreements concerning. rates of pay, rules, or work-

ing conditions, including cases pending and unad |

justed on June 21, 1934, shall be handled in the usual

mannér up to and including the éhiof operating officer

of the earrier designated to handle such disputes;

but; failing te reach an adjustment in this manner, as

the disputes may be referred by petition of the par-_

ties or by either party tothe appropriate division of

the’ Adjustment Board with a full statement of the

facts. and all supporting data bearing upon the dis- -

putes.” Sey a . %5

Railway Labor Act, Section 5, First, 45 U. S. C., See. 155,

First: Thee , '

<

‘First: Disputes. Within jurisdiction’ of Mediation

Board. . 3

“The parties, or either party, to a dispute between

an employ reer group of employees and a carrier may

invoke the services of the Mediation Board in any

of the following eases: ° - ;

cade .

°

®&

A(ay A dispute edneerning changes in-rates of

pay, rules, or w orking conditions not adjusted hy ‘the

parties in 1 confe ‘rence,

o- :

. rele — 18 —

‘‘(b) Any other dispute not referable to the Na-

+ tional Railroad Adjustment Board and not adjusted

in conference between the parties or where conferences

are refused. ee ee

‘

‘The Mediation Board may proffer its services in

case any labor emergency is found by it to exist at

any time.” ss. :

; “Tn either event the said Board shall promptly ‘a

itself in communication with the parties to such con-

troversy; and shall use its best efforts, by mediation,

cto bring them to agreement. If such efforts to bring

about an amicable settlement through mediation shall

~ be unsuccessful, the said Board shall at once endeavor

as its final reqfired action (except gs provided in para-

* graph third of this section and.in section 160 of this

‘ @hapter) to induce the parties to submit their .con-

troversy to arbitration, in accordance with the. pro-

visions of this chapter. .

“Tf arbitration at the request of the Board shall

be refused by one-or both parties, the Board shall at

once notify both parties in writing that its mediatory -

efforts have failed and for thirty days thereafter, un-

less in the,intervening period the parties agree to arbi-

. tration, or an emergency board shall be created under /

section 160 of this chapter, no change shall be made. in/

the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions or estab-_

lished practiocs in effect prio* to the time the dispute

arose.” ’

4

Railway hee Act, Section 6;45 U.S. C., See. 156:

**§ 156. Procedure in changing rates of pay, “rules

and working conditions. > yt We

_ “Carriers and representatives of the employees: ,,

shall give-at least thirty days’ written notice of an

eos |

é rae ~

intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay,

rules, or working conditions, and the time and place

for the beginning of conference between the represen-

~tatives of the parties interested in such intended

changes shall be agreed upon within ten. days after

the receipt of said notice, and said. time shail be

within the thirty days provided in the notice. In

every case where such notice of intended change has

been given, or conferences are -being held with refer-

ence thereto, or the services of the Mediation Board

have been requested by either party, or said Board has

proffered its services, rates of pay, rules, or working

conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until

the controversy has been finally acted upon“as re-

quired. by section 155 of this chapter, by the Media-

tion Board, unless a-period of ten days has elapsed

after termination of eonferences without requesfTor\, -

or proffer of the services of he iat our,

(May 20, 1926, c. 347, § 6, 44 Stat. 582, as amended

- June 21, 1934, c. 691, § 6, 48 Stat. 1197.)”’

z na. & ‘

io)