Benton

When filed, the complaint in this action set out two causes of action. In the second cause of action, plaintiffs sought a declaration that the so-called majority union 1 did not have the exclusive right to represent employees of defendant railroad in investigations held pursuant to Rule 33 2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the majority union and defendant Southern Pacific Company. The Court heretofore dismissed the second cause of action upon the ground that it did not present a justiciable controversy. 3 General Committee v. Southern Pacific Co., 320 U.S. 338 , 64 S.Ct. 142 , 88 L.Ed. 85 .

The cause then went to 'trial upon the issues tendered by the first cause of action. Therein plaintiff Benton (a member of a minority union) sought to be reinstated to the position from which defendant railroad had discharged him, for two reasons: (1) *908 that Rule 33 requiring plaintiff to be represented by a committeeman from the majority union is illegal in that it violates the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution (due process clause) and (2), that the discharge was without sufficient cause, because of…