T. E. GOODIN, Sr., Charles S. Fink, Clayton Norris and Will Taylor, Appellants, v. CLINCHFIELD RAILROAD COMPANY, Blue Ridge Lodge No. 816 of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Grady Briggs et al., Appellees

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit1956-02-10No. No. 12437

229 F.2d 578

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that a compulsory retirement provision negotiated as part of a collective bargaining agreement under the Railway Labor Act is a valid subject of bargaining and does not violate constitutional protections or the rights of minority or non-union employees.

Four railroad conductors aged 70 and older sought to block enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement provision requiring mandatory retirement at age 70. The provision resulted from negotiations between the railroad company and the union designated to represent all conductors and trainmen under the Railway Labor Act. The conductors, who were either members of a different union or nonmembers, argued that compulsory retirement fell outside the scope of collective bargaining, that the union failed to represent minority and non-union employees fairly, and that the requirement violated constitutional protections against arbitrary classification and deprivation of property.

The district court rejected all contentions and dismissed the case. The appellate court affirmed, endorsing the district judge's comprehensive reasoning and relying on supporting precedent. The court found the collective bargaining provision lawful and enforceable.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether compulsory retirement is a permissible subject of collective bargaining under the Railway Labor Act
Whether a union's duty of fair representation extends to non-members and minority union members in collective bargaining
Whether mandatory retirement provisions violate constitutional protections against arbitrary classification and property deprivation

Procedural posture

The district court granted motions for summary judgment dismissing the action, and the conductors appealed.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants, who are conductors in the employ of the appellee, Clinchfield Railroad Company, and are seventy years of age or older, sought by this action to enjoin the Railroad Company from putting into effect a provision of the existing collective bargaining contract entered into between it and the co-appellee Blue Ridge Lodge No. 816 of Railroad Trainmen, which was the designated collective bargaining representative under the Railway Labor Act, Sec. 151 et seq., Title 45 U.S.C.A., for all the conductors and trainmen of the Railroad Company. Appellants were members of the Order of Railway Conductors, Clinchfield Division 545, and only one of them belonged to the appellee Union. The provision under attack provided that all conductors and trainmen shall forfeit all seniority and retire from service upon attaining the age of seventy years. They also asked for a declaratory judgment holding said provision illegal and unenforceable.

Following the filing of answers by the Railroad Company and the Union, alleging that the compulsory retirement provision was made in good faith after extended negotiations between the Railroad Company and the Union, and that it was a valid provision, motions were also filed by them for judgment on the pleadings, which were treated by the Court as motions for summary judgment. Following a hearing at which the material facts were established without dispute, the District Judge sustained the motions and entered a decree dismissing the action, from which this appeal was taken.

Appellants contend that a provision dealing with compulsory retirement was not a matter for collective bargaining under the Railway Labor Act since it did not involve rates of pay, rules, or working conditions covered by the Act; that the Union exceeded the powers conferred on it by the Act in that it did not deal fairly and in good faith with the rights of those employees who were nonmembers of the Union or minority Union members; that the contract provision was an arbitrary and unreasonable classification of employees, deprived them of their property without due process of law, and in effect was a bill of attainder in violation of Section 9, Article 1 of the United States Constitution; and that Congress was without power to grant to one of its agencies the right to require compulsory retirement which the Supreme Court had declared unconstitutional in Railway Retirement Board v. Alton R. Co., 295 U.S. 330, 55 S.Ct, 758, 79 L.Ed. 1468.

The District Judge in a comprehensive and well reasoned opinion discussed in detail the contentions of appellants and rejected them, citing numerous authorities in support of his ruling. Goodin v. Clinchfield R. Co., D.C., 125 F.Supp. 441. For the reasons stated therein we are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed. See also the following cases which have been handed down since the case was decided by the District Judge: McMullans v. Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf R. W. Company, 10 Cir., 1956, 229 F.2d 50; Lamon v. Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co., 1955, 212 Ga. 63, 90 S.E.2d 658; U. S. Steel Corp. v. Nichols, 6 Cir., 1956, 229 F.2d 396.

Judgment affirmed.