means by which to enforce the duties imposed by the Railway Labor Act.
The Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that Amtrak is entitled as a matter of law to judgment on its motion for a permanent injunction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The findings made by the Court in its March 26, 1985, Preliminary Injunction order remain true. The defendants, and each of them, are intent to and will engage in picketing and self-help in violation of the Railway Labor Act. The only way to prevent this occurrence is by an order continuing to enjoin such action. It is clear that without such an order such acts will occur causing immediate and irreparable injury, loss and damage, in the way of cancelled and delayed railroad service, to both Amtrak and the traveling public. There is no adequate remedy available at law and injunctive relief must be granted. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for a summary judgment on its complaint, which seeks a permanent injunction, is granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, 65; see also Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission, 104 U.S. App. D.C. 106, 259 F.2d 921 (D.C. Cir. 1958).
Lastly, the Court considers defendants' motion for a preliminary injunction. That motion seeks to have the disciplinary proceedings brought by Amtrak against those participating in the February 27, 1985, strike stayed. The motion by defendants is based on their counterclaims as contained in their answer. Disciplinary proceedings against Amtrak police are governed by the collective bargaining agreement in accord with the Railway Labor Act. The method by which to institute such proceedings, to bring an investigation, and the rights of appeal are governed by the agreement. Accordingly, there is no question but that this dispute is minor. As such, the appropriate adjustment board has primary and exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary matters between AFRP members and Amtrak. The propriety of the disciplinary charges must be decided, in the first instance, by the adjustment board; this Court is without jurisdiction to enjoin the disciplinary proceedings in the instant case. See Local 1477 United Transportation Union v. Baker, 482 F.2d 228 (6th Cir. 1973). Accordingly, AFRP's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
An appropriate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
This case was initiated by the filing of plaintiff's complaint on February 27, 1985. On May 16, 1985, in an unusual action, defendants filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The merits of the overall case already having been placed at issue through cross-motions for summary judgment (with extensive supporting material), the Court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by having a hearing thereon. See Local Rule 1-9(g).
The Court wished to rule not only on the defendants' requests for injunctive relief, but also on the overall merits, expeditiously. Considerable time was expended towards achieving those goals.
The Court was just about to rule on all of the pending motions when, on May 30, 1985, defendants elected to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That necessitated delay as this Court, inter alia, was required to give careful consideration to the propriety of its issuing rulings in light of the pending petition for a writ of mandamus. Also, the Court began trial in a significant narcotics case on June 4 which did not end until late on June 7, 1985.
The Court has concluded that it not only properly may rule on the pending motions notwithstanding the petition for a writ of mandamus, but moreover that it should so rule. Consistent with that conclusion, on consideration of the defendants' motion for a temporary restraining order, the plaintiff's opposition thereto, and the entire record herein, the Court finds that the factors set forth in Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission. 104 U.S. App. D.C. 106, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958), have not been satisfied so as to warrant the injunctive relief requested by the defendants. Accordingly, it hereby is
ORDERED, that the defendants' motion for a temporary restraining order is denied.
This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment, and on defendants' motion for a preliminary injunction and on plaintiff's opposition thereto. For reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, filed by the Court this date, it hereby is
ORDERED, that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment seeking a permanent injunction is granted. The defendants, and each of them, their lodges, divisions, locals, officers, agents, employees, and representatives and all persons acting in concert or participating with them are permanently enjoined from authorizing, calling, inducing, conducting, permitting, continuing in, or engaging in, any picketing, self-help, or disruptive behavior in a manner interfering with Amtrak's business operations. It hereby further is
ORDERED, that defendants' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. It hereby further is
ORDERED, that the subject matter of this case is referred to the appropriate adjustment board for resolution of the underlying minor dispute. It hereby further is
ORDERED, that the case is dismissed.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.