Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen

323 U.S. 210

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1945-02-12
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • sustaining implied cause of action by union member against union for discrimination among members despite existence of Board of Mediation
  • “Employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives.....”
  • “Employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively____”
  • “arising under” 28 U.S.C. § 1337

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
399 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Labor & Employment Law — Railway Labor Act — Duty of Fair Representation The Railway Labor Act imposes on a labor organization acting as the exclusive bargaining representative of a craft or class of railway employees the duty to represent all employees in the craft without discrimination because of race. 323 U.S. at 211
  2. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Federal Question Jurisdiction The federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain a non-diversity suit in which a railway employee subject to the Railway Labor Act seeks remedies by injunction and award of damages for the failure of the union bargaining representative of his craft to perform its statutory duty to represent him without discrimination because of race. 323 U.S. at 212
  3. Labor & Employment Law — Railway Labor Act — Exclusivity of Remedies The Railway Labor Act does not exclude from the consideration of the federal courts a cause of action alleging that a union bargaining representative has breached its statutory duty to represent an employee without racial discrimination. 323 U.S. at 213
  4. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Federal Question Jurisdiction The right asserted by an employee against a bargaining representative is derived from the duty imposed by the Railway Labor Act, and is a federal right implied from the statute and the policy which it has adopted. 323 U.S. at 213
  5. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Federal Question Jurisdiction A suit to enforce a right implied from the Railway Labor Act arises under a law regulating commerce, of which the federal courts are given jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. § 41(8). 323 U.S. at 213
  6. Labor & Employment Law — Railway Labor Act — Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Where no administrative remedy is available to an employee alleging discriminatory breach of the duty of fair representation, he may obtain equitable relief in the federal courts, as resort to administrative remedies is a prerequisite only when such remedies are in fact available. 323 U.S. at 213
TUNSTALLv. BROTHERHOOD,323 U.S. 210(1944)
65 S.Ct. 235
TUNSTALLv. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN ENGINEMEN ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.
No. 37.
Argued November 14, 1944.
Decided December 18, 1944.
1. The Railway Labor Act imposes on a labor organization, acting as the exclusive bargaining representative of a craft or class of railway employees, the duty to represent all the employees in the craft without discrimination because of race.Steelev.Louisville Nashville R. Co., ante, p. 192. P. 211. 2. The federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain a non-diversity suit in which petitioner, a railway employee subject to the Railway Labor Act, seeks remedies by injunction and award of damages for the failure of the union bargaining representative of his craft to perform the duty imposed on it by the Act, to represent petitioner and other members of his craft without discrimination because of race. P. 212. 3. Petitioner's cause of action is not excluded by the Railway Labor Act from the consideration of the federal courts. P. 213. 4. The right asserted by the petitioner is derived from the duty imposed by the Railway Labor Act on the bargaining representative, and is a federal right implied from the statute and the policy which it has adopted. P. 213. 5. The case is therefore one arising under a law regulating commerce, of which the federal courts are given jurisdiction by28 U.S.C. § 41(8). P. 213. 6. The petitioner has no administrative remedy available, and the bill of complaint states a cause of action entitling him to relief. P. 213.140 F.2d 35, reversed.
CERTIORARI,322 U.S. 721, to review the affirmance of a
judgment dismissing a complaint for want of jurisdiction.
Mr. Charles H. Houstonfor petitioner.Mr. Harold C. Heiss, with whomMessrs. Russell B. DayandWilliam G. Maupinwere on the brief, for the BrotherhoodPage 211of Locomotive Firemen Enginemen et al.; andMr. James G.Martinfor the Norfolk Southern Railway Co., respondents.Solicitor General Fahy, Messrs. Robert L. Stern, Alvin J.Rockwell, Joseph B. Robison, Frank Donner, Marcel Mallet-ProvostandMiss Ruth Weyandfiled a brief on behalf of the United States;Messrs. Thurgood MarshallandWilliam H. Hastieon behalf of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; andMessrs. Edgar Watkins, John D. Miller, ArthurGarfield Hays, R. Beverley Herbert, andT. Pope Shepherdon behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, asamici curiae, in support of petitioner.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case toSteelev.LouisvilleNashville R. Co., ante, p. 192, in which we answered in the affirmative a question also presented in this case. The question is whether the Railway Labor Act,48 Stat. 1185,45 U.S.C. § 151et seq., imposes on a labor organization, acting as the exclusive bargaining representative of a craft or class of railway employees, the duty to represent all the employees in the craft without discrimination because of their race. The further question in this case is whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain a non-diversity suit in which petitioner, a railway employee subject to the Act, seeks remedies by injunction and award of damages for the failure of the union bargaining representative of his craft to perform the duty imposed on it by the Act, to represent petitioner and other members of his craft without discrimination because of race.

Petitioner, a Negro fireman, employed by the Norfolk Southern Railway, brought this suit in the District Court against the Railway, the Brotherhood of Locomotive FiremenPage 212and Enginemen and certain of its subsidiary lodges, and one of its officers, setting up, in all material respects, a cause of action like that alleged in theSteelecase. The Brotherhood, a labor union, is the designated bargaining representative under the Railway Labor Act, for the craft of firemen of which petitioner is a member, and is accepted as such by the Railway and its employees.

Acting as such the Brotherhood gave to the Railway the notice of March 28, 1940, and later entered into the contract of February 18, 1941 and its subsequent modifications, all of which were the subject of our consideration in theSteelecase. Petitioner complains of the discriminatory application of the contract provisions to him and other Negro members of his craft in favor of "promotable," i.e. white, firemen, by which he has been deprived of his pre-existing seniority rights, removed from the interstate passenger run to which he was assigned and then assigned to more arduous and difficult work with longer hours in yard service, his place in the passenger service being filled by a white fireman.

He alleges that the contract was signed and put into effect without notice to him or other Negro members of his craft, and without opportunity for them to be heard with respect to its terms, and that his protests and demands for relief to the Railway and the Brotherhood have been unavailing. Petitioner prays for a declaratory adjudication of his rights, for an injunction restraining the discriminatory practices complained of, for an award of damages and for other relief.

The District Court dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed,140 F.2d 35, on the ground that the federal courts are without jurisdiction of the cause, there being no diversity of citizenship and, insofar as the suit is grounded on the wrongful acts of respondents, it is not one arising under the laws of the United States, evenPage 213though the union was chosen as bargaining representative pursuant to the Railway Labor Act. SeeGullyv.First National Bank,299 U.S. 109,112,114.

For the reasons stated in our opinion in theSteelecase the Railway Labor Act itself does not exclude the petitioner's cause of action from the consideration of the federal courts. Cf.Switchmen's Unionv.National Mediation Board,320 U.S. 297;General Committeev.M.-K.-T.R. Co.,320 U.S. 323;GeneralCommitteev.Southern Pacific Co.,320 U.S. 338;Brotherhoodof Clerksv.United Transport Service Employees,320 U.S. 715,816, withTexas New Orleans R. Co. v.Brotherhood of RailwayClerks,281 U.S. 548;Virginian R. Co. v.System Federation,300 U.S. 515.

We also hold that the right asserted by petitioner which is derived from the duty imposed by the Railway Labor Act on the Brotherhood, as bargaining representative, is a federal right implied from the statute and the policy which it has adopted. It is the federal statute which condemns as unlawful the Brotherhood's conduct. "The extent and nature of the legal consequences of this condemnation, though left by the statute to judicial determination, are nevertheless to be derived from it and the federal policy which it has adopted."Deitrickv.Greaney,309 U.S. 190,200-201;Board of County Commissionersv.United States,308 U.S. 343;Sola Electric Co. v.Jefferson Co.,317 U.S. 173,176-7; cf.Clearfield Trust Co. v.United States,318 U.S. 363. The case is therefore one arising under a law regulating commerce of which the federal courts are given jurisdiction by28 U.S.C. § 41(8), Judicial Code § 24(8);Mulfordv.Smith,307 U.S. 38,46;Peytonv.Railway Express Agency,316 U.S. 350; cf.Illinois Steel Co. v.B. O.R. Co.,320 U.S. 508,510-511.

For the reasons also stated in our opinion in theSteelecase the petitioner is without available administrative remedies, resort to which, when available, is prerequisitePage 214to equitable relief in the federal courts.Goldsmithv.Boardof Tax Appeals,270 U.S. 117,123;Porterv.InvestorsSyndicate,286 U.S. 461,471;287 U.S. 346;Natural Gas Co. v.Slattery,302 U.S. 300,309;Atlas Ins. Co. v.Southern,Inc.,306 U.S. 563.

We hold, as in theSteelecase, that the bill of complaint states a cause of action entitling plaintiff to relief. As other jurisdictional questions were raised in the courts below which have not been considered by the Court of Appeals, the case will be remanded to that court for further proceedings.Reversed.

MR. JUSTICE MURPHY concurs in the result for the reasons expressed in his concurring opinion inSteelev.LouisvilleNashville R. Co., ante, p. 208.