Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Howard/Dissent Minton

by Sherman Minton

United States Supreme Court

343 U.S. 768

Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen  v.  Howard

 Argued: and Submitted April 22, 1952. --- Decided: June 9, 1952

Mr. Justice MINTON, with whom The CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice REED join, dissenting.

The right of the Brotherhood to represent railroad employees existed before the Railway Labor Act was passed. The Act simply protects the employees when this right of representation is exercised. If a labor organization is designated by a majority of the employees in a craft or class as bargaining representative for that craft or class and is so recognized by the carrier, that labor organization has a duty to represent in good faith all workers of the craft. Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 202, 65 S.Ct. 226, 231, 89 L.Ed. 173. In the Steele case, the complainant was a locomotive fireman; his duies were wholly those of a fireman. The Brotherhood in that cause represented the 'firemen's craft,' but would not admit Steele as a member because he was a Negro. As the legal representative of his craft of firemen, the Brotherhood made a contract with the carrier that discriminated against him because of his race. This Court held the contract invalid. It would have been the same if the Brotherhood had discriminated against him on some other ground, unrelated to race. It was the Brotherhood's duty 'to act on behalf of all the employees which, by virtue of the statute, it undertakes to represent.' Steele, supra, 323 U.S. at page 199, 65 S.Ct. at page 230, 89 L.Ed. 173.

In the instant case the Brotherhood has never purported to represent the train porters. The train porters have never requested that the Brotherhood represent them. Classification of the job of 'train porter' was established more than forty years ago and has never been disputed. At that time, the principal duties of the train porters were cleaning the cars, assisting the passengers, and helping to load and unload baggage; only a small part of the duties were those of brakemen, who were required to have higher educational qualifications. As early as 1921, the train porters organized a separate bargaining unit through which they have continuously bargained with the carrier here involved; they now have an existing contract with this carrier. Although the carriers gradually imposed upon the train porters more of the duties of brakemen until today most of their duties are those of brakemen, they have never been classified as brakemen.

The majority does not say that the train porters are brakemen and therefore the Brotherhood must represent them fairly, as was held in Steele. Whether they belong to the Brotherhood is not determinative of the latter's duties of representation, if it represents the craft of brakemen and if the train porters are brakemen. Steele was not a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen and could not be because of race-the same reason that the train porters cannot belong to the Brotherhood of Trainmen. But Steele was a fireman, while the train porters are not brakemen.

The Brotherhood stoutly opposes the contention that it is the representative of the train porters. For the Court so to hold would be to fly in the face of the statute (45 U.S.C. § 152, Ninth, 45 U.S.C.A. § 152 Subd. 9) and the holding of this Court in General Committee v. Missouri-K.-T.R. Co., 320 U.S. 323, 334-336, 64 S.Ct. 146, 151-152, 88 L.Ed. 76. The majority avoids the dispute in terms but embraces it in fact by saying it is passing on the validity of the contract. If this is true, it is done at the instance of persons for whom the Brotherhood was not contracting and was under no duty to contract. The train porters had a duly elected bargaining representative, which fact operated to exclude the Brotherhood from representing the craft. Steele, supra, 323 U.S. at page 200, 65 S.Ct. at page 231, 89 L.Ed. 173. Virginian R. Co. v. System Federation, 300 U.S. 515, 548, 57 S.Ct. 592, 599, 81 L.Ed. 789.

The majority reaches out to invalidate the contract, not because the train porters are brakemen entitled to fair representation by the Brotherhood, but because they are Negroes who were discriminated against by the carrier at the behest of the Brotherhood. I do not understand that private parties such as the carrier and the Brotherhood may not discriminate on the ground of race. Neither a state government nor the Federal Government may do so, but I know of no applicable federal law which says that private parties may not. That is the whose problem underlying the proposed Federal Fair Employment Practices Code. Of course, this Court by sheer power can say this case is Steele, or even lay down a code of fair employment practices. But sheerpower is not a substitute for legality. I do not have to agree with the discrimination here indulged in to question the legality of today's decision.

I think there was a dispute here between employees of the carrier as to whether the Brotherhood was the representative of the train porters, and that this is a matter to be resolved by the National Mediation Board, not the courts. I would remand this case to the District Court to be dismissed as nonjusticiable.

Notes