Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad

1967-12-11
Share:

Headline: Rail labor dispute over crew manning: Court vacates earlier denial and refuses review, leaving lower courts to decide contempt fines and keeping the strike dispute between the union and railroads.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Keeps the union-railroad dispute in the lower courts for further factual findings.
  • Leaves questions about contempt and fines to be decided by the trial court.
  • Supreme Court will not review the case now; review could happen after lower-court findings.
Topics: rail labor, arbitration disputes, strikes and contempt, court procedure

Summary

Background

A union and several railroads disagreed about an arbitration award that governed how trains and engines were staffed in freight service. The union said the award ended at 12:01 a.m. on March 31, 1966. On March 28, a federal trial judge in Washington issued a temporary order forbidding the union to strike. The union struck on March 31 and the trial judge entered contempt orders, imposing substantial fines for allegedly violating the restraining order. The union appealed.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Supreme Court should step in now to review the appeals court’s rulings. The appeals court addressed legal issues but sent the case back to the trial court to determine whether a contempt actually occurred and whether the original coercive fines should remain in any amount. Because those factual and remedial matters were remanded, the Supreme Court concluded the case was not ready for its review. The Court vacated an earlier December 4, 1967 order and then denied the petition for review, leaving contempt and fine questions for the lower courts to resolve.

Real world impact

Practically, the ruling keeps the dispute in the lower courts for now. The union and the railroads must await the trial court’s further findings before the Supreme Court will consider the legal questions. Substantial fines could be reduced, kept, or changed depending on what the trial court decides on remand. This decision is procedural rather than a final ruling on the underlying labor or arbitration issues.

Dissents or concurrances

One Justice, Mr. Justice Black, said he would have allowed the case to be argued before the Court, indicating he disagreed about whether the matter should have been heard now.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases