Local Union No. 25 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company

PETITIONER: Local Union No. 25 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
RESPONDENT: New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company
LOCATION:

DOCKET NO.: 33
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1955-1956)
LOWER COURT:

ARGUED: Nov 10, 1955
DECIDED: Jan 09, 1956

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Local Union No. 25 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 10, 1955 in Local Union No. 25 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company

Earl Warren:

Number 33, Local Union Number 25 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters versus the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company.

Mr. D'Arcy.

Stephen J. D'Arcy, Jr.:

May it please the Court, sir.

This case is before this Court on writ of certiorari to the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The question was limited as follows.

Does the Labor Management Relations Act oust state courts of jurisdiction of a suit by a railroad to enjoin a union and union representatives from engaging in peaceably conducted strikes or attempts to undo such strikes by the employees of interstate motor carriers for the purpose of persuading such carriers to agree to restrict their use of interstate railroad transportation facilities and to give some portion of such interstate carriage work to their employees who are all represented by the union.

Now, the respondent railroad company is a common carrier by rail subject to the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act and to the Railway Labor Act.

Since approximately December of 1937, this particular railroad has engaged in the operation of hauling flatcars loaded with truck trailers of the type ordinarily hauled over the highways by a motor truck.

The operation is known in the trade and popularly as piggy-backing.

This operation is carried on between several cities in New England and New York, principally Boston to New York and vice versa.

The petitioner union is the collective bargaining representative of drivers and helpers, employed by motor carriers in the Boston area and has collective bargaining agreements with those motor carriers who operate from the Boston area.

The union does not represent any employees of the railroad.

The individual petitioners are officers and representatives of the union.

The process of piggy-backing is accomplished in the Boston area by having loaded trailers drawn by motor trucks to the railroad yard, known as Yard 5 in Boston.

Those trucks are operated by employees of motor carriers who are the members of this organization.

There, the trailers are driven or rather taken by mechanical devices by employees of a railroad subsidiary, the New England Transportation Company.

That transportation company is a trucking company and subject to the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board under the Labor Management Relations Act.

Those employees of New England Transportation are also represented by the same union and the union has a contract with that same New England Transportation Company.

Those employees then take the trailers and put them on the flatcars from which point railroad employees, specifically, railroad employees, tie the so-called trailer on to the flatcars so that it can be hauled.

For some years as the state court had found here, the union had been disturbed about piggy-backing because it felt that the practice diminished the opportunities of employment of the members of the organization.

During the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements with the motor carriers from 1946 up through the contract which was in effect at the time this action commenced, the union had made proposals which would have tendered to restrict the haulage of these trailers on the piggy-back system.

The evidence in the record discloses that the union had made such a proposal and finally -- ultimately those contractual proposals did not appear in the contract.

After the contracts were -- were agreed upon, discussions and negotiations continued between the union and various individual motor carriers as appears in the record and they came to individual agreements respecting the shipment and the number of trailers to be shipped through their system.

Those agreements were not uniform.

They were diverse depending upon the particular carrier the union negotiated with.

There were also discussions and there had been an --

Harold Burton:

(Voice Overlap) --

Stephen J. D'Arcy, Jr.:

-- issue raised --

Harold Burton:

-- those associations include the New England Transportation Company?

Stephen J. D'Arcy, Jr.:

Yes, sir.