The opinion of the court was delivered by: HOLTZOFF
The award was made and was filed in this Court. In an action to impeach the award, this Court sustained the award, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., 225 F.Supp. 11. Its order was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
and an application for a writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.
Thereafter, a motion was made before this Court in behalf of certain of the carriers to enjoin organizations of railroad employees from instigating or calling a strike in protest against the application of certain provisions of the award. The Court granted the motion, In re Certain Carriers, etc., D.C., 229 F.Supp. 259.
It is the view of this Court that it has authority to enforce the award and to prevent its violation. As the Court understands it, this opinion is not disputed by counsel for any of the parties. It was on this basis that this Court enjoined the organizations of railroad employees from trying to interfere with the application and enforcement of the award and to frustrate it. By the same token, the Court would enjoin the railroads from failing to comply with the award.
The scope of the authority of the Court in that respect as to both parties is, however, limited by a very important provision. Section 157 of Title 45, United States Code, Paragraph Third, Subsection (c), provides that:
'Upon notice from the Mediation Board that the parties, or either party, to an arbitration desire the reconvening of the board of arbitration * * * to pass upon any controversy over the meaning or application of their award, the board, or its subcommittee, shall at once reconvene.'
In other words, any dispute concerning the interpretation of the award or the method of its application must be determined by the Arbitration Board in the first instance. This Court is without power or certainly it should abstain from interpreting the award when any dispute as to its application arises, unless the question of interpretation and construction is resolved first by the Board. This course is quite analogous to the general principle of the necessity of exhaustion of administrative remedies before invoking a judicial remedy. Once a particular interpretation is made and is unambiguous, if either side refuses to comply with it, then of course this Court may implement its confirmation of the award by a proper remedy to compel compliance. This remedy may be an injunction or it may be an order of a different type.
It must be borne in mind, however, that while this Court may implement the award and compel compliance with it by orders such as have been indicated, it does not follow that this Court would have jurisdiction or would undertake the disposition of individual disputes between individual employees and the employing carriers. Disputes of that type are minor disputes to be determined locally. This Court by its orders can undertake only to dispose of what in the parlance of the Railway Labor Act are referred to as major disputes.
The Court is not oblivious to the fact that time is an important element in this matter, to both sides, to the employees an to the carriers as well. The Court assumes that the Board will act with dispatch, because this Board has so acted in the past.
Under the circumstances, the Court will strike the present motion off the list, with the privilege of having it reset on five days' notice after the decision of the Board, provided, however, that the Board, ...