that there is objection to referring the matter to the Special Adjustment Board.
The Court has given due consideration to the decision of the Supreme Court in Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U.S. 650, 85 S. Ct. 614, 13 L. Ed. 2d 580, which held that contract grievance procedure should be followed in connection with claims for severance pay under collective bargaining agreements subject to the Labor-Management Relations Act. The Court is of the opinion, however, that this case is not applicable. What the Court is doing here is, in effect, adding a condition on which its injunction shall be continued and is exercising its equity powers accordingly. The situation is entirely different, not only in fact but also in principle, from that presented in the case just referred to.
The second aspect of the motion made by the Brotherhood is to require the Southern Pacific Railroad to call men from the extra list for jobs that have been abolished as a result of the process of attrition prescribed by the basic award of the Board. This question too has been referred to the Board for determination and construction, because the award is either ambiguous or silent upon this point. Unfortunately, the answer of the Board is both obscure and ambiguous. There seems to be a contradiction or at least an ambiguity between the answers rendered by the Board to questions 1(a), 1(b), 60(b) and 76, submitted by the parties.
The Court is of the opinion that it has no power to construe the award. It may only enforce it. The power of construing the award is vested by statute in the Board. The statute permits the Board to be reconvened from time to time for the purpose of construing the award. The Court will not render in favor of the Brotherhood any relief on this aspect of the matter and will deny the application to that extent, without prejudice to either party resubmitting the question to the Board for clarification and thereafter resubmitting it to the Court.
The Court wishes to say that is observations are not to be taken as a criticism of the Board. The Board has performed a difficult and intricate task in a superb manner. It so happens that among the many aspects of its activities this ambiguity arises.
You may submit a proposed order in accordance with this decision.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.