Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen

Last updated

Tunstall v. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Original jurisdiction
Argued November 14, 1944
Decided December 18, 1944
Full case nameTom Tunstall v. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen et al.
Citations323 U.S. 210 ( more )
65 S. Ct. 235; 89 L. Ed. 187; 1944 U.S. LEXIS 1198; 4 Ct. Dec. Relating N.L.R.A. 798; 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ¶ 9608; 9 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 389; 15 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 715; 9 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 51189 (1944)
Case history
PriorCERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. CERTIORARI, 322 U.S. 721, to review the affirmance of a judgment dismissing a complaint for want of jurisdiction.
Subsequent140 F.2d 35, reversed.
Outcome
The Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone
Associate Justices
Owen Roberts  · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed  · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas  · Frank Murphy
Robert H. Jackson  · Wiley B. Rutledge
Case opinions
MajorityChief Justice Stone
ConcurrenceJustice Murphy

Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210 (1944), is a 1944 Supreme Court case. It involved a black man, Tom Tunstall, who was unfairly dismissed from his job because of his race.

Contents

Background

Plaintiff Tom Tunstall was a locomotive fireman, employed by the defendant company, Norfolk Southern Railway Company and its predecessor Norfolk Southern Railroad Company (both hereinafter called the Railway) on or prior to March 28, 1940. The plaintiff was rendered ineligible for membership in the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen (hereinafter called the Brotherhood) solely because of his race. On or about March 28, 1940, the Brotherhood initiated negotiations with the defendant Railway and other carriers. As a result, there was a collective bargaining agreement dated February 18, 1941. And ever since the beginning of the negotiations with the Railway until the result of the collective bargaining agreement, the Brotherhood has claimed to be the exclusive bargaining representative under the Railway Labor Act 48 Stat. 1185, 45 U. S. C. §§ 151 et seq. [1]

Logo of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, established in 1873, known as the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen from 1907. BrotherhoodLocomotiveFiremen-logo.jpg
Logo of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, established in 1873, known as the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen from 1907.

In other words, when a labor union is certified as bargaining agent under the Railway Labor Act, it becomes the exclusive bargaining representative for the entire craft or class of the employees. Consequently, minority members of the bargaining unit can neither choose another representative of their choice nor engage in individual, independent bargaining. This would then often lead to less power for them due to the fact that their interests would not be properly represented by the bargaining representative and thus they have no choice but to remain without proper representation. During the entire time under consideration in this case, the Brotherhood maintained that the employment rights of the plaintiff and the class represented by him are governed by the said collective bargaining agreement dated February 18, 1941. The Brotherhood initiated the negotiations without notifying the plaintiff, Tom Tunstall, or any other members of his class. [2]

The Railway and the other carriers protested against the negotiations proposed by the Brotherhood and the Brotherhood invoked the services of the National Mediation Board without giving notice of such action to the plaintiff or any other members of his class. Moreover, the Brotherhood did not notify the plaintiff or any other members of his class after the execution of the contracts that such agreements had been executed. Plaintiff Tunstall claimed that he suffered because of the Brotherhood’s modifications to the collective bargaining agreement.

As a result of the negotiations, Tunstall was deprived of his seniority and rights by being removed from his job as a fireman. Instead, he was assigned more difficult and arduous work at a lower wage and was replaced by a white member of the brotherhood. This situation left the black firemen and enginemen voiceless and thus powerless, basically unable to protect their rights. Therefore, the plaintiff brought suit for declaratory judgment, injunction, and damages on account of discriminatory contract in favor of white members and against black members of the craft.

However, the Fourth Circuit at the Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case on the ground that the federal courts lacked the jurisdiction over the case. The plaintiff therefore appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the Circuit Court and granted a writ of certiorari.

Opinion of the Court

Mr. Charles H. Houston for plaintiff, Tom Tunstall. Mr. Harold C. Heiss for respondent, The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen. Chief Justice Stone delivered the opinion of the Court, which held that the Railway Labor Act imposed on unions a "duty to exercise fairly the power conferred upon it in [sic] behalf of all those for whom it acts, without hostile discrimination against them." [3] The Court outlined the Railway Labor Act's duty in its Steele opinion, and adopted it by reference in Tunstall, dedicating the balance of the Tunstall opinion to discussing whether a class action for an injunction under the Act poses a federal question. Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210, 211-14 (1944) (answering the federal question issue in the affirmative). This duty defined by the Court required that the Brotherhood, as an exclusive bargaining agent, was required "in collective bargaining and in making contracts with the carrier, to represent non-union or minority union members of the craft without hostile discrimination, fairly, impartially, and in good faith." [4] Although the Court never specifically stated the magic words, this good faith duty has become widely recognized as the "duty of fair representation." [5] The Court opinion emphasized that it was especially concerned with the problem of economic hardships that would have resulted by the Railway Labor Act. The Court commented, "the minority would be left with no means of protecting their interests or, indeed, their right to earn a livelihood by pursuing the occupation in which they are employed." [6]

Justice Frank Murphy’s concurring opinion explicitly advocated the strength of Houston’s Realist arguments. [7] Justice Murphy commented that "the utter disregard for the dignity and the well-being of colored citizens shown by this record is so pronounced as to demand the invocation of constitutional condemnation." [8] He did not hesitate to criticize the majority for failing to candidly confront the issues that Houston raised; "to decide the case and to analyze the statute solely upon the basis of legal niceties, while remaining mute and placid as to the obvious and oppressive deprivation of constitutional guarantees, is to make the judicial function something less than it should be." [9] Justice Murphy even advocated that a clearer and stronger message be sent by the Court:

No statutory interpretation can erase this ugly example of economic cruelty against colored citizens of the United States. Nothing can destroy the fact that the accident of birth has been used as the basis to abuse individual rights… [a] sound democracy cannot allow such discrimination to go unchallenged. Racism is far too virulent today to permit the slightest refusal … to expose and condemn it wherever it appears in the course of a statutory interpretation. [10]

In conclusion, the Court announced that the duty of the certified collective bargaining agent to represent the members of unions fairly and without racial discrimination when negotiating a bargaining agreement was implicit in the Railway Labor Act. [11]

Legacy

By winning this case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Attorney Houston made a unique contribution for the rights of minorities in the area of labor law. The strategy of legal Realism implemented by Houston in this case, with analysis of the lasting ramifications emanating from, is worth noting. This case is one of many other cases within the larger history of civil rights Houston pursued in the courts. His involvement in the issues facing African American union members began with the Colored Railway Trainmen and Locomotive Firemen's Local No.5. The facts presented to him by Tunstall v. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen were "reflective of the ubiquity of discrimination" put against African Americans in unions.

See also

Related Research Articles

Collective bargaining is a process of negotiation between employers and a group of employees aimed at agreements to regulate working salaries, working conditions, benefits, and other aspects of workers' compensation and rights for workers. The interests of the employees are commonly presented by representatives of a trade union to which the employees belong. A collective agreement reached by these negotiations functions as a labour contract between an employer and one or more unions, and typically establishes terms regarding wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms, and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs. Such agreements can also include 'productivity bargaining' in which workers agree to changes to working practices in return for higher pay or greater job security.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States labor law</span> US laws on fair pay and conditions, unions, democracy, equality and security at work

The rights and duties for employees, labor unions, and employers are set by labor law in the United States. Labor law's basic aim is to remedy the "inequality of bargaining power" between employees and employers, especially employers "organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association". Over the 20th century, federal law created minimum social and economic rights, and encouraged state laws to go beyond the minimum to favor employees. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 requires a federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 but higher in 29 states and D.C., and discourages working weeks over 40 hours through time-and-a-half overtime pay. There are no federal laws, and few state laws, requiring paid holidays or paid family leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 creates a limited right to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in larger employers. There is no automatic right to an occupational pension beyond federally guaranteed Social Security, but the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 requires standards of prudent management and good governance if employers agree to provide pensions, health plans or other benefits. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires employees have a safe system of work.

The duty of fair representation is incumbent upon Canadian and U.S. labor unions that are the exclusive bargaining representative of workers in a particular group. It is the obligation to represent all employees fairly, in good faith, and without discrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen</span> American labor organization

The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen was a North American railroad fraternal benefit society and trade union in the 19th and 20th centuries. The organization began in 1873 as the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, a mutual benefit society for workers employed as firemen for steam locomotives, before expanding its name in 1907 in acknowledgement that many of its members had been promoted to the job of railroad engineer. Gradually taking on the functions of a trade union over time, in 1969 the B of LF&E merged with three other railway labor organizations to form the United Transportation Union.

Chauffeurs, Teamsters, and Helpers Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558 (1990), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that an action by an employee for a breach of a labor union's duty of fair representation entitled him to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.

Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, 500 U.S. 507 (1991), deals with First Amendment rights and unions in public employment.

Arthur Davis Shores was an American civil rights attorney who was considered Alabama's "drum major for justice".

Charles Sterling Hutcheson was a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that, in a union security agreement, unions are authorized by statute to collect from non-members only those fees and dues necessary to perform its duties as a collective bargaining representative. The rights identified by the Court in Communications Workers of America v. Beck have since come to be known as "Beck rights," and defining what Beck rights are and how a union must fulfill its duties regarding them is an active area of modern United States labor law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Order of Railroad Telegraphers</span> Former trade union of the United States

The Order of Railroad Telegraphers (ORT) was a United States labor union established in the late nineteenth century to promote the interests of telegraph operators working for the railroads.

14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009), is a United States labor law case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the rights of unionized workers to sue their employer for age discrimination. In this 2009 decision, the Court decided that whenever a union contract "clearly and unmistakably" requires that all age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 be decided through arbitration, then employees subject to that contract cannot have those claims heard in court.

Railway Labor Executives' Association (RLEA) was a federation of rail transport labor unions in the United States and Canada. It was founded in 1926 with the purpose of acting as a legislative lobbying and policy advisory body. At times, it played a prominent role in setting rail transport policy in the U.S., and was party to six U.S. Supreme Court cases. It disbanded in January 1997, with representation, collective bargaining, and legislative lobbying assumed by the newly formed Rail Division of the AFL–CIO Transportation Trades Department.

Union Pacific Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 558 U.S. 67 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision on labor disputes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen</span> Former railroad union in the U. S.

The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (BRT) was a labor organization for railroad employees founded in 1883. Originally called the Brotherhood of Railroad Brakemen, its purpose was to negotiate contracts with railroad management and to provide insurance for members.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Switchmen's Union of North America</span>

The Switchmen's Union of North America (SUNA) was a labor union formed in October 1894 that represented the track switch operators and people who coupled railway cars in railway yards in the United States and Canada. It became part of the United Transportation Union in 1969.

The International Association of Railway Employees (IARE) was a union for black railroad workers formed in 1934 at a time when the major railroad brotherhoods restricted membership to whites. Members included conductors, trainmen, engineers, shop mechanics, porters and maintenance-of-way employees. It joined the United Transportation Union in 1970.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Burlington railroad strike of 1888</span> 1888 labor movement

The Burlington railroad strike of 1888 was a failed union strike which pitted the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, and the Switchmen's Mutual Aid Association (SMAA) against the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad (CB&Q) its extensive trackage in the Midwestern United States. It was led by the skilled engineers and firemen, who demanded higher wages, seniority rights, and grievance procedures. It was fought bitterly by management, which rejected the very notion of collective bargaining. There was much less violence than the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, but after 10 months the very expensive company operation to permanently replace all the strikers was successful and the strike was a total defeat for them.

JI Case Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 321 U.S. 332 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with labor law. Workers at the company's factory had voted to unionize, but J.I. Case Company had refused to negotiate with the new union, and tried to enforce old contracts instead. The court upheld the NLRB's decision that they'd violated the National Labor Relations Act, but said that the NLRB had to re-word the order it had issued.

Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co., 323 U.S. 192 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court case, concerning U.S. labor law, specifically, the responsibility of every formally recognized labor organization to equally represent all the members of their class or craft, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In particular, the Court ruled that the Act covered employees regardless of whether any particular individual(s) are, or are not, members of the duly recognized labor organization labor unions.

References

  1. Case summary page
  2. Houston opposes review of Tom Tunstall's case. (December 13, 1947). Afro-American (1893-1988) Retrieved from
  3. Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 203 (1944)
  4. Steele, 323 U.S. at 204.
  5. Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210, 211-14 (1944)
  6. Steele, 323 U.S. at 201.
  7. Realist argument, as described by Professor Bell, was designed to work in such a manner by pointing judges towards the unique factual and ethical issues of each case, while overlaying the economic and political implications of the judge's decision. Bell, supra note 12, at 367.
  8. Id. at 208 (Murphy, J., concurring).
  9. Id. at 208 (Murphy, J., concurring).
  10. (n79 Id. at 209.)
  11. Black Labor and the American Legal System: Race, Work, and the Law, By Herbert Hill Therefore, the Court is of opinion that the record clearly demonstrates that the motion of the plaintiff for summary judgment should be granted and the motions of the defendants for summary judgments should be denied