Order of Railway Conductors of America v. Pitney

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to consider to what extent a Federal District Court having charge of a railroad reorganization has power to adjudicate a jurisdictional dispute involving the railroad and two employee accredited bargaining agents in view of the provisions in the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., giving such power to the administrative agencies established thereunder. Each union claims that its respective collective bargaining agreement entitles it to supply conductors for five daily freight trains operated within the Elizabethport, New Jersey, yards of the railroad and both pressed their contentions on the reorganization trustees appointed under the provisions of § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act. 11 U. S. C. § 205. The two unions are the Order of Railway Conductors (O. R. C.), which represents road conductors who ordinarily operate trains outside the yards, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (B. R. T.), which represents yard conductors who ordinarily operate trains inside the yards. But here, the practice over a period of years had been that at times yard conductors manned some trains outside the yard and road conductors manned some trains *563within the yard, including the five freight trains here involved. In 1940 the railroad in response to pressure by the O. R. C. agreed that thereafter only road conductors would man the outside trains. However, O. R. C. conductors continued to operate the five daily freight trains within the yard. In 1943 the railroad was prevailed upon by the B. R. T. to agree to substitute B. R. T. yard conductors for the 0. R. C. conductors operating these five trains.

Thereupon 0. R. C. brought this suit in the reorganization court. It alleged that its members had for the past 35 years operated the trains in issue as a result of negotiations as to rules, rates of pay and working conditions between it and the railroad and that the 1940 contract specifically provided that this situation would not be changed without further agreement. Thus, the proposed displacement of 0. R. C. conductors would violate § 6 of the Railway Labor Act which makes it unlawful for a carrier or employee representatives to change “pay, rules, or working conditions,” unless 30 days written notice of the intended change shall have been given and the controversy has been finally acted upon by the Mediation Board.1 The 0. R. C. asked the court to instruct its *564trustees not to displace road conductors and to> enjoin them permanently from taking such action so long as O. R. C.’s contracts with the road were not altered in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act.

Answers were filed by the trustees and the B. R. T. as intervenor. The case was referred to a Master who, after a hearing, found that 0. R. C.’s collective bargaining contracts did not provide that its conductors were to operate the five freight trains and that the B. R. T. contract allotted these lines to its members. The District Court sustained these findings and accordingly dismissed the petition on the merits. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that the petition should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds because it thought that the remedies of the Railway Labor Act for the settlement of disputes such as here involved are exclusive. 145 F. 2d 351. It further stated that if it should be mistaken on the jurisdictional question, then it agreed with the District Court that the road conductors must lose on the merits.

Section 77 (n) of the Bankruptcy Act provides that “No judge or trustee acting under this Act shall change the wages or working conditions of railroad employees, except in the manner prescribed in the Railway Labor Act . . 49 Stat. 923. Section 1 of the Railway Labor Act defines a carrier, subject to it, as including “any receiver, trustee, or other individual or body, judicial or otherwise, when in the possession of the business of any such1 carrier’ . . .” And § 2, Seventh, of the Act provides that “no carrier, its officers or agents shall change the rates of pay, rules, or working conditions of its employees, as a class as embodied in agreements except in the manner prescribed in such agreements or in section 6 of this Act.” Section 6, as we have seen, prohibits such changes unless notice is first given and its requirements are otherwise complied with. Section 2, Tenth, of the Act makes it a *565misdemeanor, punishable by both fine and imprisonment, for a carrier wilfully to violate § 6.

These sections make it clear that the only conduct which would violate § 6 is a change of those working conditions which are “embodied” in agreements. But the answers here specifically denied that the O. R. C. agreements provided that road conductors operate the five trains in question. This put in issue the meaning of the contracts that allegedly embodied the working conditions which the trustees were about to change. The court, therefore, had to interpret these contracts before it could find that § 6 had been violated.

In interpreting the contracts the court might act in two distinct capacities. First, it might do so in the capacity of a “judicial” “body” in the “possession of the business,” or a “carrier” within the meaning of § 1 of the Railway Labor Act. As such it would have to interpret the contracts in order to exercise the jurisdiction conferred by the Bankruptcy Act2 to control its trustees so as to insure the preservation and proper administration of the debtor’s estate. But such instructions, while binding on the trustees and, just as any other order, subject to appellate review, amount to no more than the decision any other carrier would sooner or later make about the course it must follow and, therefore, can not finally settle the dispute between union and employer.

Finally, to settle that dispute the reorganization court would have' to act in the further capacity of a tribunal empowered to grant the equitable relief sought, even though granting that relief requires interpretation of these contracts. But Congress has specifically provided for a tribunal to interpret contracts such as these in order finally to settle a labor dispute. Section 3 First (i) of the Rail*566way Labor Act provides that disputes between a carrier and its employees “growing out of . . . the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions . . . may be referred . . . by either party to the . . . Adjustment Board.” The Board can not only order reinstatement of the employees, should they actually be discharged, but it can also under § 3, First (o) and (p) grant a money award subject to judicial review with an allowance for attorney’s fees should the award be sustained. Not only has Congress thus designated an agency peculiarly competent to handle the basic question here involved, but as we have indicated in several recent cases in which we had occasion to discuss the history and purpose of the Railway Labor Act, it also intended to leave a minimum responsibility to the courts.3

Of course, where the statute is so obviously violated that “a sacrifice or obliteration of a right which Congress . . . created” 4 to protect the interest of individuals or the public is clearly shown, a court of equity could, in a proper case, intervene. Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Clerks, 281 U. S. 548; Virginian R. Co. v. System Federation, 300 U. S. 515. But here it does not clearly appear whether the statute has been violated or complied with or that the threatened action “would be prejudicial to the public interest.” Pennsylvania v. Williams, 294 U. S. 176, 185. We have seen that in order to reach a final decision on that question the court first had to interpret the terms of O. R. C.’s collective bargaining agreements. The record shows, however, that interpretation of these contracts involves more than the mere construction of a “document” in terms of the ordinary meaning of words *567and their position. See Brown Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 299 U. S. 393, 396. Great Northern R. Co. v. Merchants Elevator Co., 259 U. S. 285, 291. For O. R. C.’s agreements with the railroad must be read in the light of others between the railroad and B. R. T. And since all parties seek to support their particular interpretation of these agreements by evidence as to usage, practice and custom, that too must be taken into account and properly understood. The factual question is intricate and technical. An agency especially competent and specifically designated to deal with it has been created by Congress. Under these circumstances the court should exercise equitable discretion to give that agency the first opportunity to pass on the issue. Certainly the extraordinary relief of an injunction should be withheld, at least, until then. See Thompson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 309 U. S. 478, 483-484; Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315. Only after the Adjustment Board acts, but not until then, can it plainly appear that such relief is necessary to insure compliance with the statute. Until such time, O. R. C. can not show irreparable loss and inadequacy of the legal remedy. The court of equity should, therefore, in the exercise of its discretion stay its hand. Lawrence v. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 274 U. S. 588, 592-3 and other cases cited in Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U. S. 41, 51, n. 9; Natural Gas Co. v. Slattery, 302 U. S. 300.

We hold that the District Court had supervisory power to instruct its trustees as it did. And a review of the evidence persuades us that the court’s findings on which such instructions were based are not clearly erroneous. To the extent that its order constitutes instructions to its trustees, it is affirmed. Of course, in this respect it is no more binding on the Adjustment Board than the action of any other carrier. But the court should not have interpreted the contracts for purposes of finally adjudicating the dispute *568between the unions and the railroad. The dismissal of the cause should therefore be stayed by the District Court, so as to give an opportunity for application to the Adjustment Board for an interpretation of the agreements. Any rights clearly revealed by such an interpretation might then, if the situation warrants, be protected in this proceeding.5

It is so ordered.