until that litigation was disposed of and a final judgment entered.
The Court disagrees. There was no stay applied for, and certainly none granted. There was no supersedeas. There was no stipulation postponing the effectiveness of the award. It should be observed that the parties entered into a stipulation postponing the effectiveness of that part of the award which affected the firemen, but no stipulation was entered into as to the trainmen. The parties had a right to act under the award from the moment it became effective, that is, on January 25, 1964. Accordingly, the Court reaches the conclusion that the notices were not served prematurely, but that the defendants were within their rights in serving them.
It is next claimed that the notices were insufficient in that they were too broad, because they enumerated groups of runs rather than specific runs. The Court is of the opinion that this contention is not meritorious, and holds that the notices were sufficient.
It is then claimed that the boards did not follow the prescribed procedure, and that, therefore, the awards should be set aside. This contention is predicated on the major premise that the provisions of the Railway Labor Act governing the procedure of an arbitration board are applicable to these local adjustment boards. To be sure, the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, found in 45 U.S.C. §§ 158, 159, were binding on the special Board of Arbitration created by the Act of Congress, and those provisions were complied with. The Court is of the opinion, however, that they are not applicable to the special boards of adjustment created under the award.
These special boards are creatures of the Arbitration Board and not of any statute. The nearest analogy to these boards is the National Railroad Adjustment Board, which sits in regional divisions. By analogy, it would seem to follow that the procedure prescribed for the divisions of the Adjustment Board should be applicable to the special adjustment boards created under the award, and this Court so holds.
The procedure prescribed by the statute governing these boards is found in subsections (i), (j) and (m) of 45 U.S.C. § 153. The pertinent provisions are as follows:
'* * * the disputes may be referred by petition of the parties or by either party to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board with a full statement of the facts and all supporting data bearing upon the disputes.'
There is no requirement that sworn oral testimony shall be taken. The papers submitted to this Court indicate that this provision was complied with.
It is further provided that:
'Parties may be heard either in person, by counsel, or by other representatives, as they may respectively elect, * * *.'
In this case the representatives of the employees declined to be heard.
We now pass to subsection (m). It provides as follows:
'The awards of the several divisions of the Adjustment Board shall be stated in writing. A copy of the awards shall be furnished to the respective parties to the controversy, and the awards shall be final and binding upon both parties to the dispute, except insofar as they shall contain a money award.'
There is no provision for filing the award with any Court.
The requirements of subsection (m) have been complied with. These considerations meet the objections of the plaintiff that sworn testimony should have been taken and that a transcript should have been filed, together with the award, in the office of the Clerk of this Court. There is no such requirement.
The Court might also add, however, that it is questionable whether the plaintiff is in a position to challenge the procedure of the board, for it declined to participate in the hearing and failed to tender any evidence, either by way of sworn oral testimony or exhibits.
There is one additional observation that the Court desires to make. The Court is not unmindful of the fact that loss of employment may be a human tragedy to the employee involved and to his family. It is a fact that we are undergoing a dislocation of this type in many industries, somewhat similar, although not to the same degree, to the dislocation that took place a hundred and fifty years ago during the Industrial Revolution. These dislocations cannot be avoided.
In this case, however, no one is going to lose his employment, because the reduction permitted by the awards in the size of train crews is not going to take place except by the process of attrition. In the meantime, the present employees maintain their positions, subject, of course, to being transferred to other work. If I may use a colloquialism, the disastrous effect that might have occurred to numerous employees is cushioned to a large extent. The Court, in making these observations, wishes to emphasize the fact that it is not influenced by them in its decision, because the Courts should not step beyond their proper function of deciding the issues submitted to them.
A transcript of this oral decision will constitute the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The motion for a preliminary injunction is denied, and counsel may submit an appropriate order.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.