Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees v. Allen

PETITIONER: Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees
RESPONDENT: Allen
LOCATION: Clauson's Inn

DOCKET NO.: 316
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1962-1965)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 373 US 113 (1963)
ARGUED: Mar 25, 1963
DECIDED: May 13, 1963

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees v. Allen

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 25, 1963 in Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees v. Allen

Earl Warren:

Number 316, Brotherhood of Railway and Steamships Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, Petitioners versus, Anna Mae Allen et al.

Mr. Kramer.

Milton Kramer:

Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.

This case arises from a number of employees of the Southern Railway, suing that Railway and its non-operating unions to enjoin the enforcement of a union-shop agreement entered into by the railroad and the unions.

The unions that was sued, the railroad and the union-shop agreements are the identical unions, railroad and agreement that were involved in Street -- in International Association of Machinists against the Street which this Court decided a year and a half ago.

Arthur J. Goldberg:

[Inaudible]

Milton Kramer:

The AFL-CIO is asking you to reconsider Street, and I think you might well do so.

We have not asked the Court to reconsider Street because it is not necessary to do so.

The decision below, we say is inconsistent with Street, taking Street as it is.

Although, we concur with the AFL-CIO that the Court might well be considerate and state that no cause of action was shown in this case.

But taking Street as it is, the plaintiffs in this case have not shown a cause of action under the Street case and even if they had, the relief that was given them is inconsistent with the relief that this Court said could be given when there is a cause of action.

In fact, the relief given here is precisely the relief that this Court said could not be given.

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

[Inaudible]

Milton Kramer:

Pardon?

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

The case -- only inconsistent?

Milton Kramer:

Well, it is at least inconsistent.

It is in direct violation.

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

The proviso does say, it's directly to the contrary.

Milton Kramer:

It is directly contrary.

The plaintiffs below chose not to comply with the union-shop agreement.

Instead, they sued to enjoin its enforcement saying that they were not members of the union, did not pay it any money, did not want to pay it any money, and that to enforce the agreement against them would be unlawful.

Now after this Court decided the Hanson case that was a case that came from Nebraska in which this Court upheld the validity of the union-shop agreement and reversed the Supreme Court of Nebraska which had set it aside on the ground that the money might or might not be used in accordance with the individual's view.

This Court in this Hanson case said that wasn't enough; might or might not and therefore, reversed.

This is exactly the Hanson case.

The case was tried before a jury.

14 of the plaintiffs testified and their counsel stated that of the others, two were no longer employees, one was in a position exempt from the union-shop agreement, and that the remainder if they testify, would testify the same way that the 14 did.

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

This is not a class action?

Milton Kramer:

And this was brought as a class action but the trial court did not sustain that it's a class action.

Byron R. White:

[Inaudible]

Milton Kramer:

That is correct Mr. Justice.