Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen, Etc. v. Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway Co.

A dispute arose between the above named Union and the appellee Railroads concerning allowances to union members for expenses when on duty away from home. When the parties were unable to agree, the Union threatened to strike. The Railroads then brought this suit in the court below to enjoin the strike. From an order granting such an injunction the defendant Union appeals.

Following the extended disputes between numerous railroads and their operating employees relating to rules and working conditions which are recounted in detail in Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 372 U.S. 284 , 83 S.Ct. 691 , 9 L.Ed.2d 759 , and in Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 382 U.S. 423 , 86 S.Ct. 594 , 15 L.Ed.2d 501 (January 31, 1966), Congress undertook to avoid the consequences of a threatened strike by the unions through the enactment of provisions for compulsory arbitration of two of the issues between the *101 carriers and the unions. There remained other disputes, not comprehended within this arbitration, which the parties undertook to deal with in what the parties refer to as the “White House Agreement” dated June 25, 1964. The…

I dissent. In my opinion the dispute is a minor dispute falling under section 3, not a major dispute falling under section 6. I cannot quarrel with my brother Pope’s opinion as an exercise in judicial logic. It says that the union’s notice of August 3, which refers to section 6 of the Act, sought “an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions” (section 6). Hence a dispute falling within section 6 was created. My difficulty is with his premise. It is a too simple solution of a complex problem. It seems to me to disregard what I consider basic, the language and the purpose of the 1964 White House Agreement, as well as the purpose of sections 3 and 6.

Two provisions of that agreement, which was a nationwide settlement following threat of a most serious nationwide strike, are particularly pertinent here. With specific reference to the away-from-home expenses of train crews, Article II, Section 1 of the Agreement provides:

This was as definite a settlement of this issue, on a national basis, as could be made. Local conditions vary widely; therefore this provision was to be “worked out” locally. But there is no indication that these matters were…

366 F.2d 99 ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS AND BRAKEMEN, etc., et al., Appellants, v. SPOKANE, PORTLAND & SEATTLE RAILWAY CO. et al., Appellees. No. 20331. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Aug. 18, 1966. Clifford D. O'Brien, Portland, Or., Harry J. Wilmarth, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for appellants. Hugh L. Biggs, James P. Rogers, Garry R. Bullard, of Davies, Biggs, Strayer, Stoel & Boley, Portland, Or., for appellee. Before POPE, JERTBERG and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges. POPE, Circuit Judge. 1 A dispute arose between the above named Union and the appellee Railroads concerning allowances to union members for expenses when on duty away from home. When the parties were unable to agree, the Union threatened to strike. The Railroads then brought this suit in the court below to enjoin the strike. From an order granting such an injunction the defendant Union appeals. 2 Following the extended disputes between numerous railroads and their operating employees relating to rules and working conditions which are recounted in detail in Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 372 U.S. 284 , 83 S.Ct. 691 , 9 L.Ed.2d 759 , and in Brotherhood of Locomotive…