A dispute arose between a railroad and a labor union as to the
railroad's obligation under their collective bargaining agreement
to give conductors extra pay for certain services. The railroad
refused the demand of the union and commenced a declaratory
judgment action in state court. The union thereafter filed a
petition for hearing and award before the Adjustment Board under
the Railway Labor Act.
Held: the state court was without power to interpret
the terms of the agreement and adjudicate the dispute.
Slocum
v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., ante p.
339 U. S. 239. Pp.
339 U. S.
255-257.
215 S.C. 280, 54 S.E.2d 816, reversed.
In a declaratory judgment action brought b a railroad against a
labor union, for adjudication of a dispute arising out of a
collective bargaining agreement between them, a state court
interpreted the agreement and entered a declaratory judgment. The
State Supreme Court affirmed. 215 S.C. 280, 54 S.E.2d 816. This
Court granted certiorari. 338 U.S. 899.
Reversed and
remanded, p.
339 U. S.
257.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises the same statutory question as
Slocum v.
Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., ante, p.
339 U. S. 239. The
petitioner, Order of Railway Conductors, is the only accredited
bargaining representative of conductors employed by the
respondent
Page 339 U. S. 256
Southern Railway. A dispute arose between certain conductors and
the railroad concerning the railroad's obligation under the
collective bargaining agreement to give conductors extra pay for
certain services. The claims of the conductors were referred to the
union, which sought by negotiation to persuade the railroad to pay.
The railroad refused, and thereafter prayed a South Carolina state
court for a declaratory judgment interpreting the agreement as not
requiring the claimed payments. The trial court first refused to
exercise jurisdiction. Citing
Order of Conductors v.
Pitney, 326 U. S. 561, it
held that state courts, like federal courts, should leave
settlement of such disputes to the National Railroad Adjustment
Board. The state Supreme Court reversed, holding that the state
court did have power to interpret the bargaining agreement and
adjudicate the dispute. 210 S.C. 121, 41 S.E.2d 774. After a
lengthy trial, the lower court held that the collective agreement
did not require the compensation sought by the conductors, and
entered the declaratory judgment requested. The Supreme Court
affirmed. 215 S.C. 280, 54 S.E.2d 816.
For reasons set out in the
Slocum case,
ante,
p.
339 U. S. 239, we
hold that the South Carolina state court was without power to
interpret the terms of this agreement and adjudicate the dispute.
We discuss this case separately because it sharply points up the
conflicts that could arise from state court intervention in
railroad-union disputes. After the railroad had sued in the state
court, the union filed a petition for hearing and award before the
Adjustment Board. The state court nevertheless proceeded to
adjudicate the dispute. Sustaining the state court's action would
invite races of diligence whenever a carrier or union preferred one
forum to the other. And if a carrier or a union could choose a
court instead of the Board, the other party would be deprived of
the privilege conferred by § 3, First(i) of the Railway Labor Act,
48
Page 339 U. S. 257
Stat. 1191, 45 U.S.C. § 153, First(i), which provides that,
after negotiations have failed "either party" may refer the dispute
to the appropriate division of the Adjustment Board.
The judgment of the South Carolina Supreme Court is reversed,
and the cause is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with
this opinion.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE REED is of the view that the decision below should
be affirmed for the reasons set out in his dissent in
Slocum v.
Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., ante, p.
339 U. S.
245.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.
