Goodin v. Clinchfield Railroad Company

prived of the of the of the Com- exercise discretion a member never has been We, Attorney Party because sub- United States. General’s munist testimony thought erroneously accepted of ordinates however, he was ineligible” “statutorily suspension con- witnesses Government deportation. trary mem- of was such a and found that he is, his testi- we have found ber. That suspend The courts mony Under such to be discredited. deportation deportable alien favor- not feel that circumstances we do discretionary power solely is vested Attorney General’s able exercise of the General, 1254. 8 U.S.C.A. § Attorney deportation suspend is discretion However, Attorney when the is General merited.” required precedent as a condition to an words, according deportation to the order In other to exercise his Board, respect suspension found to be discretion whenever an alien is deportable, deportation suspension deportation, validity of the order hearing granted upon should if at his must not be rest the needed exercise gave testimony contrary lacking, the alien If discretion. it is the order what the officials found to administrative is ineffective. Where in the order is reasoning apparently effective, custody petitioner be true. The is testimony unlawful, that a witness whose is not and the court must order his accepted by discharge. perjurer the trier of fact is a A formal order to that effect good person and not a moral character. will be entered. reasoning only legally Such is not in valid, contrary but to the basic legal sense fairness which our system is founded. testify

The of an alien to in his one, statutory own behalf is a 5 U.S.C.A. undoubtedly a constitutional § one, Immigrant Japanese Case [Kaoru Yamataya Fisher] 721. L.Ed. Section 1254 is GOODIN, Sr., E. et T. al. designed give who, relief to an alien trial, deport- after fair is found to be COMPANY, CLINCHFIELD RAILROAD testify able. The of an alien to Ridge Lodge Blue No. 816 of Brother necessary his own behalf is a element Trainmen, hood of Railroad et al. trial, deprived of a fair and he cannot be Civ. A. No. 891. merely of the benefit of the statute be- United States District Court testimony gave cause the he in his own Tennessee, D.E. Northeastern Division. contrary behalf was to that on which Oct. finding deportability was based. branding perjurers vice wit- testimony accepted nesses whose is not emphasized the trier of fact in a close such case as this one where the findings gone on the facts could have way. either statutes, 8 U.S.C.A. § regulations, 242.54;

the federal 8 CFR 242.61, deportable 8 CFR entitle a alien timely application who has made for sus-

pension deportation to an exercise of Attorney General’s discretion application. such Here Acosta was de- Tenn., Goodin, City, ; John D. Johnson suit was filed under the Declara- Tenn.,. tory Knoxville, Judgments Powell, Jr., Act, Ferdinand U.S.C. § plaintiffs. Jurisdiction of this court was based 45 U.S.C.A. § McIntyre, Sol., K.A. Clinchfield Gen. seq., 151 et also Title 28 U.S.C. § Co., Erwin, Erwin, Tenn., It. Erwin, Tucker & gives jurisdic- the district courts Kings- Tenn., McLellan, John S. tion when the matter exceeds three thou- sand dollars and arises under port, Tenn., for defendants. consti- tution, laws Judge. or treaties of the United TAYLOR, ROBERT L. District States, and Title 28 U.S.C. .§ employees This is a suit of the five gives any jurisdiction district courts of Company, Clinchfield Railroad a railroad proceeding arising civil action or any under operated by Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Congress regulating Act of com- Company and Louisville and Nashville merce. against Company, lease, under Ridge agreed Lodge said railroad An and Blue No. order was entered in the restraining case on Brotherhood of Railroad Train- March men, organization changing quo labor authorized to defendants from the status bargaining agent any plaintiffs act as the exclusive of the as same existed Company of the Railroad the time of the commencement Railway Act, under the suit Labor as a result certain of the Union, officials of the the Railroad Labor and a num- and the Union dated Febru- ary 1, 1954, entry ber of judg- individuals who are members of until the seventy the Union. years Each ment case. age, filing or older. Since the complaint Plaintiffs in their amend- as suit, plaintiff of the Prince has retired ed contend that retire- from the railroad service and is no provision agree- ment in the amended longer party an active in the suit. ment is invalid for a number of reasons. assigned alleged The invalidity convenience, reasons

For for the Clinchfield Railroad Company of the contract are set forth will sometimes be referred to complaint in detail in the Railroad, Ridge as hereafter as amended Blue Lodge and will be referred to later. No. 816 of Brotherhood of Rail- Union, road plain- Trainmen as the The Railroad and the Union Employees. tiffs as separate in their answers assert that the The Railroad and the Union amended provision retirement was existing good con- made faith after ne- extended pursuant tract entered into gotiations to the terms between the Railroad and the Railway amended, Labor Union, provision. and that it is a valid seq., by providing 45 U.S.C.A. 151 et § The Railroad and the Union have filed for the retirement of summary judgment, motions for assert- employee upon ing covered such contract complaint in each motion that the attaining seventy. This amended fails to state a claim parties amendment was executed granted. which relief can be February 1, on request plaintiffs, hearing At the Employees recently declaratory ask for a was mary judgment, held on the motion for sum- judgment that the retirement at which time provision February 1,1954 Goodin, orally amend- Norris and Fink testified bargaining agreement support allegations is in of the factual illegal, complaint void Also, unenforceable. The the as amended. Mr. complaint prays Goforth, Secretary amendment to the Union, of testified injunction being by plaintiffs’ issue called defendant after counsel restraining the execution of the com- for A number cross-examination. provision. pulsory stipulations parties were made n forty-three approximately during hearing is no There are there so that dispute parties ma- active hundred five conductors and one between the necessary on the active trainmen members of the who are to a decision

terial fact forty- Approximately question is defendant Union. motions. The determinative legal one, namely, three members of the defendant whether the furloughed. legal right to are either retired or Plain- and the Union had the Taylor only de- made tiff is the" member of the amend their pursuant along He, Act fendant Union. plaintiffs, provide other three also members are as to who the Order of the Railroad and trainmen Conductors of all their conductors compulsory pro- seventy years. Union. The retirement reached by vision was first members discussed stipulations, pleadings, oral and The February 14, of the defendant Union on proof, to a decision insofar as material 1953, at which members of the other time following motions, present on the lodges including present, were trainmen defendant facts: The main offices Railway and conductors of the Southern Erwin, Ten- town are located meetings Company. The Union has two nessee, defend- live. The where compulsory each month and the retire- 1923, and was formed in ant Railroad question ment meeting was discussed at each partnership a has continued to exist as 9, 1953, until October .at consisting Atlan- or union of interests time it was voted to issue to its members Company, a Line Railroad tic Coast question ballots on of whether or not Virginia corporation, and and Louisville the members agreement desired enter into Kentucky Company, a Railroad Nashville setting up with the Railroad purpose corporation, of and en- for the seventy. a retirement Carolina, gaged leasing as from lessee At this time ballots were issued to the Company, Ohio Railroad Clinchfield and non-members of the Union but their corpora- Virginia and South Carolina They votes were not counted. were con- lessor, operates tion, as owner and and advisory only. sidered the Union as Kentucky, Spar- City, from Elkhorn November On each wrote through Carolina, tanburg, South stating letter to the Railroad in sub- Tennessee, Virginia, Kentucky, states of stance that he considered the action of The Railroad and South Carolina. North the Union to retire all and conductors year constructed about was age seventy arbitrary trainmen at Carolina, and Railroad Clinchfield Ohio illegal. and The letters also stated that operated Company, until it was and upon there were no restrictions the terms defendant, Com- Clinchfield leased pany, employment capability except long it under who in 1923 leased physical condition. The non-members Line Atlantic Coast lease to the term they agree stated that would not and Louisville compulsory provision. Taylor Plaintiff Company. The first Nashville joined protest. majority A also this was made de- of the votes cast the October refer- predecessors in 1910. Other fendants’ favored the establishment endum of a' agreements were agreement. compulsory retirement On practice A was 1922 and 1948. made in 27, 1953, November the defendant Union agreements not under these established issued ballots in a second election to close any discharge cause conductor 1, 1953, upon December long as he was able to proposition. trainman These retirement ballots say they Plaintiffs work. issued to were also the non-members of throughout practice Union whose votes were counted. On relied long through plaintiffs, service period of their November counsel, February 14, 1953, Goforth, Mr. the their wrote secre- On Railroad. tary Union, of the defendant re- first discussed a attempted provision. execution the Union and tirement fixing compulsory retire- ment the Railroad of the ’ age? illegal provision for the ment would be Plaintiifs in the letter. reasons set forth “Section First of the protested on a vote in this letter Labor Act states: ‘It shall be the question in substance and stated duty carriers, officers, of all rights waiving any of their were agents, employees every to exert challenge Union and the action reasonable effort to make and main- permitting a referendum the Railroad agreements concerning tain rates of proposed on the pay, rules, working conditions. > * * * agreement. was held and a election majority cast the votes substantial provides: “Section 2 Fourth ‘Em- compulsory retire- were in favor of the organ- ployees shall have the Following provision. the election bargain through collectively ize and repre- meetings held between were representatives of their own choos- representa- sentatives of the Union ing. majority craft or Railroad which resulted tives of the class of shall have the agreement on Febru- the conclusion of an to determine who shall be the ary 1, 1954, compulsory that established representative of the craft or class represented retirement for all purpose chapter. for the Railroad Train-' the Brotherhood of * (cid:127)* a > employ men in of the Railroad the Railway not, “The Labor Act does age seventy. Company at terms, permissive by its define the question for decision is- bargaining agreements scope of ex whether the retirement phrase, cept use of the ‘rates the agreement the Union and the between rules, working pay, condi Railroad is valid. Plaintiifs contend that necessary, It becomes tions.’ there the retirement is agree fore, to determine whether an Railway invalid Labor Act because the for a retirement upon does the Union as not confer a age purview within falls the statutory representative the Em prob A such terms. similar one right ployees and. the Railroad the to Appeals lem confronted the Court of agree make a in In of this Circuit the case of question ment. The identical was de B., Cir., N. land Steel Co. v. L. R. adversely cided to the contention of 170 F.2d A.L.R.2d de Judge plaintiifs by District William J. in which a certiorari cided Campbell December an Supreme Court, was denied the copy unpublished opinion, a of which was brief, filed as Exhibit “A” to the Union’s Appeals 1112. The Court of there Boget Chicago & the case of North upheld a decision of the National Co.; Chicago Western Railroad & North Board, requiring Labor Relations Company, Western counter- subject employer La National third-party claimant Relations Act [29 bor U.S.C.A. § counterdefendants, Boget, and Brother bargain collectively seq.] 151 et to Engineers, third-par hood of Locomotive age. respect to retirement

ty defendants, D.C.N.D.Ill., 51C No. stated: “The Court “ E.Div., portion pertinent the of which are unable to ‘We differentiate follows: is as right the conceded of a un- pass “I will now to the second bargain concerning ion to a dis- pending question presented charge, particularly a nondis- motions: criminatory discharge, of an em- “ right bargain ployee and its' ‘Does the Labor Act au- concerning bargaining agree- at which he is a thorize collective case, organize'and bar- compelled In either to retire. gain collectively. job States employee at the The United his loses Supreme employer; frequently refers in either Court command ease, the two Acts “conditions” cases under changeably, effect .inter- employment un- on cases person’s is that and relies terminated, employment der one Act for construction is case, think, in the affected other. we either employee Act is under the entitled “It should be further remembered through bargain collectively his to duly rely on a unless representative, con- selected bargaining agreement for *** cerning such termination. employment, tenure Company’sposition standing would to sue matter is not a of retirement any instance, for reason that the incongruous leads discharge employer all.” them could proper mat- result that Plaintiffs’ contention employee presented is if an ter is suddenly dis is discharged day be- on the age criminatory minority group of toas but fore he reaches particularly employees, the Railroad’s day, when he the next compulsory adversely plaintiffs, decided was also retirement, his union Judge Campbell to their contention concerning bargain opinion in the above referred to his such retirement. Boget case, pertinent portion of “ ‘ * * * by dis- termination which is as follows: concededly charge matter ques- come to the third “We now say bargaining. that To at issue. tion by is not retirement termination process agree- same could bargaining amendable not, “Is a collective judgment, supported be in our ment, a retire- wherein by logic, sense. reason or common age discriminatory? fixed, * * * para- in has been said “What “ preceding graphs disposing also of the concedes ‘The dispose seniority proper issue, adequately col- is a matter for should * * bargaining However, addition, in *. What this issue. lective protecting purpose re- be noted would be should against lay-off discriminatory employees is not tirement senior arbitrarily only employer certain em- could sense that it affects when an compul- unilaterally compul- place ployees not others. The and and seventy years age age sory sory at level retirement retirement might purpose? employees all alike in its ulti- suit its which affects * * * results, Again employees, all we note that dis- since mate charges seniority rights, like a with carrier and remain and who live plan, spe- enough, day pension long will reach and are some retirement cifically obliged bargaining in the and will be mentioned retirement employment. True, requirements the Act.’ some leave their immedi- feel its effectiveness will ately, reasoning of the Court “The will feel others not its whereas case Appeals in Inland Steel future, until some but ascer- touch tainable, compul- compels conclusion fact, however, That time. proper sory ais retirement present its not militate does bargaining under the collectiye for Railway applicability.” universal Act. That Act and question was made the em- Act Labor Relations National Boget case the Rail- long history ployees in the a identical both prohibited or lim- Act protect- Retirement road the matters construction provides ited the Railroad of the that one of the conditions age. getting signing annuity to fix a retirement a question application annuity Plaintiffs this written have not made for an present portion prescribed in the of the a suit. The manner and form as dealing opinion Boget case the Railroad Retirement Board.” question is as follows: reasoning opinion, In the court’s Judge “Passing Boget Campbell and final to the fourth in the case is question at issue. sound the conclusions drawn him “ acceptable prin- are as decisive of the ‘Does the Retirement cipal issues in this ease. prohibit Act or limit bargaining carrier a collective Plaintiffs contend that representative to fix power bargaining is without to authorize age?’ agreements representatives Age “The Railroad Retirement Employees containing purport does to establish the provisions. It may or shall been has held that authorization for col predicate Plaintiffs retire. congression lective is within primarily instant action Sec- power al under the commerce clause. Ac privides: 2(c) tion cordingly, authorization of collective bar “ agreements gaining begin annuity constitutional. ‘An shall ac- Virginian Railway System specified Co. Federa crue as of a date to be tion No. (to U.S. application written be made However, 81 L.Ed. 789. in such manner and form be itself not be must used as prescribed the Board to be weapon against minorities as to signed de the individual entitled prive them of civil thereto), constitutional but— rights. Corp. B., Wallace v. N. L. R. “(1) Not date follow- before the day compensated the last Steele Louisville & Nashville Railroad applicant, and service Co., 323 U.S. 65 S.Ct. “(2) sixty days Not than more 173. filing application.’ the before ofxthe No individual has constitutional clearly is “The Retirement Act right employed to be another. Indi- subject of limited the the terms may viduals enter into a contract of em- conditions under an em- ployment, they so, do if contract annuity. ployee an shall be entitled to rights arise which have some constitu- age merely sixty- Act fixes the The protection. tional But there is no con- age as the at which a male five prohibition stitutional the employee becomes entitled to an breaking contract, and if is one annuity, assuming he meets the oth- aggrieved party broken the has his cause qualifications. Act encour- er damages. employment action In of for age ages sixty- of at the wrong- relations it would be an action for five, prevents employee an for it discharge. ful Plaintiffs have no con- using, computing the amount from right employed tractual or vested to be annuity, any his service of rendered they by the Railroad. If had individual year the end of calendar ‘after employment of contracts and were which the individual attains wrongfully discharged by the defendant sixty-five.’ age of they wrong- could Railroad have sued for (cid:127) 3(b) (4). they discharge, “Sec. Section suing re- ful but are not upon wrongful discharge. does riot lied cover for The record in- ‘application retirement,’ they for an or not dicates do have individual any single method of Railroad, ac- with the establish contracts defendant complishing simply appear fully retirement. It will as more hereafter. 448 n Cir., Railway Co., 6 rights New York Central plaintiffs have are

What contract agreement 361. F.2d with 152 based on collective long as continue will origi Modification, of is true agreement If force. collective bargaining, be used nal weapon right agreement falls collective depriving punishment or of falls no There is constitutional it. employees or constitutional of their civil right particular employment re- to have rights. Line Coast Rolax v. Atlantic through perpetual perpetuated lations Railway Co., Cir., F.2d 473. 186 agreement. renewals of the collective seniority rules Modification of agreement If the collective though is involun its effect not invalid tary any is invalid for Union and the Railroad age an at reasons, it falls or all of asserted bargaining. Inland fixed collective security plaintiffs Union or collective Cir., B., 170 F.2d R. Steel Co. v. N. L. through falls with If the Railroad it. denied, certiorari 12 A.L.R.2d surrenders its Union contract 336 U.S. plaintiffs’ employment an at terminate choosing accepts age support of its own of their conten- Plaintiffs in age, seventy pow- as the termination not have tion that does agreement by implied more than an authorize the constitution to er under employees employment agree- the Railroad to continue and railroads to enforce providing until and trainmen retire- conductors ments terminating seventy ages, be- reach before cite the. case certain age. 'contract Without the Board v. Alton cause of employer Retirement Co., could terminate them at 295 U.S. A In the court time. collective L.Ed. 1468. that case seventy establishing compul- as the termination that the act held sory abridgment system pension is not an employees retirement and abridgment only but to the Interstate all carriers right. employer’s seq., 1 et 49 U.S.C.A. Commerce § process was violative of the due clause If among that, the Fifth Amendment devised as a in this case was things, take the it undertook to other individually penalizing them means of property private of some of the carriers group or individual because compen- it to and transfer others an unlawful dis activities would be object sation, where the the transfer Corp. N. L. R. Wallace crimination. B., up the transferee was to build. This, 65 S.Ct. 238. employees. pension its Numerous other however, the Plaintiffs is not situation. by why the court stated reasons .were mainly abrogation rely denial or process the due the Act violated clause. rights seniority as the basis their alleging controlling present is of the That case not agree invalidity of the collective case. Seniority, affecting promo ment. tions, objection eventualities, lay-offs, and similar Another constitutional by plaintiffs is to the Act the that from statutes or constitu offered does not arise origin delegated mandate, Labor Union the its col has but has in it tional power itself. No to enforce vested lective solely therefore, perpetuation right, because without exists on adults establishing any seniority they standard or test to be rules. As arise from bargaining, the the can be modi Labor followed collective bargaining. power. Ford of this As heretofore exercise fied Railway Huffman, 345 indicated, 2 of Section the Labor U.S. Co. v. Motor duty 1048; Lewellyn it makes the the railroad v. Act Cir., Fleming, to make and 154 F.2d Elder maintain v. and pay, regarding that he has agreements Plaintiff claims “rates of Goodin working private defendant The a contract with the rules, and conditions”. in 1908. At the Railroad which was made purpose is to have the Act main of employees predecessors of de- of that time one of the to settle all railroads and was the South and disputes inter fendant Railroad avoid in order to the ruption Company. growing Mr. Cables Western Railroad out to commerce Man- the Vice-President and General dispute. to choose was It was ager objective Railroad. of se of South and Western means which its the 1908,plaintiff curing uninterrupted In Goodin of He left 1912. service the Mr. con- to se met Cables while was' railroads was be Goodin United States cured, judgment expressed The railroad in the ductor on work train. and its laying open review was track at that time. Goodin Act is not brought seniority. Virginian Railway Co. v. was second in Cables in the courts. Wiley System a man the from over name of No. Federation Huff railroad as conductor and made In Ford Motor Co. v. another 57 S.Ct. 592. seniority. man, man the him second in A of Hall name came over and circulated court said: petition to make third in sen- himself acceptable in the dis- “Variations iority. Goodin testified that at that time bargaining representa- cretion of going bring if he asked Cables he was tives, however, may well include additional men over from other railroads upon such matters differences based and make his them senior. Cables told seniority as the unit within which he him that was the third man in seni- privileges computed, is be ority and that he would third in remain relate, which it shall the nature seniority. This is the of the basis claim work, which it is the time at Goodin he has indivi- done, fitness, ability or of the dual contract with the Railroad to con- employees”. perpetuity long tinue his work in vitally industry The railroad com capable performing ishe the duties of safety public. cerned conductor. Plaintiff Goodin and say court unable to the retire- plaintiffs other three claim also provision seventy years not has been pany custom of the Railroad Com- directly safety related throughout years that it would public. discharge anyone hearing long and without cause so as he was able Plaintiffs also contend that perform employee. duties as an vio shows, however, The record clause, I, lates attainder Article custom stemmed from Constitution, Section Clause agreements which have been effect provides “No Bill of Attainder or bargaining agreement since the first was post passed.” ex facto Law shall be An made with Union in objection other constitutional is that it process denies due in violation proof There is the record that Amendment, provides of the Fifth authority had Cables from the Board of * * * part: person “No shall be of Directors the Railroad deprived life, liberty, property, of or into the enter contract process without due of law”. As here he claims entered into Goodin with him observed, plaintiffs prop tofore have no in 1908. erty employment, in continued ex applied by As construed and cept contract, as derived from in this .bargaining courts, collective under meaning case contract gaining the collective bar Act and similar agreement, acts which further means property all, supersedes individual contracts between at employees. of process employers and Order Rail hence due is not involved. 450 Railway Express attainder, recognized Telegraphers of guarantees v. road 582, legislation 342,

Agency, Inc., 64 S.Ct. such 321 U.S. legis preclude R. N. L. were not intended to 88 L.Ed. B., J. I. Case Co. 576, qual 332, L.Ed. lative 64 S.Ct. 88 definition of standards 321 U.S. public professional ification for 762. employment. distinguish Carefully prac Any practice or custom ing legislative ‘in instance of past ticed the railroad punishment’ fliction of from the ex discharge any employee a hear without power ercise of ‘the been cause could have without and prescribe qualifications,’ the Court agreement changed by a valid legis said in ‘The Garland’s case: and the Railroad undoubtedly prescribe lature qualifications agency Railway Labor under the office, for the to which which was done may, conform, he as it where must February 1, 1954. jurisdiction, pre it has exclusive now revert to the contention We qualifications pursuit scribe for the that the violates ordinary avocations of In clause of the constitution. attainder Wall, pages 379-380, life.’ 4 18 at City Public v. Board of Works Garner Cummings also, L.Ed. 366. See 716, page Angeles, at of 722, 341 U.S. Los Missouri, supra, State 4 Wall. at 909, page 913, L.Ed. at 95 71 S.Ct. pages 318-319, 18 L.Ed. This 1317, said: the court doctrine was reaffirmed Dent v. ‘legislative Virginia, 1889, State “Bills of attainder are of West 129 * * apply 114, 231, 623, either U.S. acts easily Field, individuals or to ascer Mr. Justice who named had Cummings group in written the and Garland of a such members tainable opinions, way punishment for a wrote unanimous inflict a as to elevating judicial upholding Court a statute trial them * * Lovett, qualification prac standards of *.’ United States v. tion stitutional this ards privilege isment are Ex mings 18 4 Wall. U.S. at circumstances er causes curring opinion Lovett, 1946, ^[1073] “Cummings L.Ed. parte punishment legislative unable employment. Court 4 Wall. is a 328 U.S. v. State imposed qualification and previously pages Garland, 366, pages prohibitions applying the to conclude that 90 L.Ed. 1252. prerequisite. merely provides stand v. State of action attending deprivation.’ Cum 1080,1083. 318, depends upon 303, 315, 18 L.Ed. 356. 1867, leading enjoyed Missouri, 1867, general regula L.Ed. 324, 66 S.Ct. curtailing federal con 4 supra, Wall. eligibility Missouri, See con 66 S.Ct. cases in amounts Punish punish Wheth bills 333, ‘the We penalties named individual ute further ly operative Rather, by “did not declare able pursuit engaged in it.” any person who had been convicted distinguished bidding tice disqualifying Garland cases as People 170 1002, there eligibility Court observed in the Lovett felony. legislature medicine. qualifications the Court payment of State with the “was 189, its terms it standards of practice Both Dent and Hawker some 18 S.Ct. general held employees.” upheld judicial of New And in establishes reason necessary inapplicable public persons presently for a vocational Cummings to compensation 573, a statute for prohibited medicine trial.” York, 1898, Hawker v. employment. qualification prospective- the statute effect of The stat- imposed L.Ed. when case, to

451 dissenting sec. Act said: munists from at upholding the Communist-oath dinance which 339 Communications v. State of Wall. United States U.S. to of attainder cites discharge 1252; Ex ^[*] antee Frankfurter, J., State and Nation Quotations page 9(h) U.S. “The unions’ “The Constitution ^[*] making securing also, to diverse 18 L.Ed. 356. 303, 691, -»» 382, public according the National 18 66 S.Ct. 94 L.Ed. part, parte at Missouri, above provisions operated city competent L.Ed. Ass’n, page employment. argument concurring governmental said: functions jobs. Lovett, 1946, 328 Garland, are related 366; Those cases 413, 1073, 925, I.C. does not familiar to exclude Labor Relations not confined professional appropriate In American 70 S.Ct. Cummings argument, O., as to to pertain- provision, 4 v. part court cases, guar- Wall. jobs. City, an or- Douds, bill Com- 674, and of three 4 having page conduct. At the statute validation of Section herence to this hibited decree of punishment on them without a to tioned it group in has ever been overruled. for the acts, punishment apply adhere to it. cial this ri, * * * is a [Cummings “Section “In easily particular 4 1078 of 66 trial Court no matter what their Wall. legislative found them either to named individuals Cummings named proposition ascertainable members are bills Neither of ‘operates such a perpetual 304 was said, page the Constitution. without a in the two cases men and individuals. principle requires in S.Ct., individuals, ‘A Ex v. act 315 of 328 way designed guilty State bill exclusion’ parte attainder which inflicts 18 L.Ed. the court judicial as to these of attainder They stand legislative form, legislative Garland] Just as Missou We do congress inflict U.S., apply disloyal cases from trial. judi pro 356, Ad said: or at parte proscription of certain chosen vocation. Gar [Ex involve the occupations Wall, group land, supra, page ac- 4 classified to a loyalty. pro cording permanent But This L.Ed. 366.] to belief scription opportunity distinction: from there is a decisive punishment, previous indivi- decisions the serve Government being type. were in fact and of a most severe It is a duals involved actions; type punishment punished past whereas only special types invoked for in this case are has dangerous only crimes, position possible loss of because of odious such ground 2; treason, acceptance for the 18 U.S.C. there is substantial § congressional judgment Congress, of bribes members of loyalties 199, 202, 203; will be trans- 18 U.S.C. beliefs §§ * * * government officials, formed into conduct. other U.S.C. future the intention is to forestall and interference with elec Here § dangerous acts; by Army Navy officers, there is no future tions voluntary U.S.C. 58. one who § loyalties which im- alteration 304, thus, clearly “Section accom- action, eligible pel him become punishment plishes the of named sign affidavit. We cannot con- judicial without a individuals trial. this section is a bill clude punishment fact that the in- attainder.” through instrumentality flicted Lovett, specifically cutting an Act off the United States pay of certain named held to be a bill of individuals at- guilty disloyalty, unconstitutional, tainder, of' makes it hence act of found galling congress compensation less or effective than if it which cut off the minority good faith, group by sent the done an Act had been necessary designated further stated wherever that as criminal.” the conduct required to that end the Union is to con- alleged here that It is not requests sider of non-union members and the at Labor Act contravenes expression of their views with re- clause, tainder that the violation but spect subject bargain- to the of collective agreement. fore The collective ing give oppor- and to them notice of or subject going quotations of at on the hearing tunity proposed on its action. conclusively at that tainder indicate plaintiffs knew record shows that applies punishment. In order tainder early February, ques- as as 1953 that the argument, attainder to sustain compulsory tion of retirement was be- plaintiffs show that would have to During considered the Union. designed agreement was period thereafter until the second persons, operate them as named vote of con- was taken it was a easily persons ascertainable or as among employees on the stant discussion however, That, penalized. intended to be streets. Plaintiffs made known let- they ground on which advance is not the protests ters their before contention, on the but the attainder again They the first vote was taken. ground company and the union that letter-through protested Union agreement have entered into a collective previously able counsellor. This men- age they adopted why forth tioned letter sets the reasons seventy re as the plaintiffs felt appears, it is a For tirement. all illegal. was The reasons set forth in that every apply provision will con practically letter are the same reasons re- when and if he ductor of the railroad complaint lied in the bill of seventy. By any of reaches the why amended reasons court should and discussed tests above defined invalid, except declare the Supreme Court, of con that sort plaintiffs did not claim that were provision of attainder. is not a bill tract appear meetings entitled to in the contend that Plaintiffs further express opposi- their views duty owed to them the Union violated pro- tion to the agent represent as their Taylor vision. Plaintiff had that minority group them as members as a member of the Union. impartial, fair, in a good support In of this faith manner. The court concludes that failure to meeting plaintiffs say the Union to a contention invite meetings express to invite them to their Union to their views does not in- failed bargaining agreement. question views on the and to hear their validate It is retirement. true that court further concludes that plaintiffs were not invited to the Union fairly good and in faith in Union acted meetings to discuss retire entering into the provisions. February 1, with the Railroad case of Steele v. Louisville & In the sustaining Company, Let an order be submitted Nashville court, summary judgments stating after the motion dis- bargaining agent missing repre- duties of a the case.

Case Details

Case Name: Goodin v. Clinchfield Railroad Company

Court Name: District Court, E.D. Tennessee

Date Published: Oct 21, 1954

Citation: 125 F. Supp. 441

Docket Number: Civ. A. 891

Court Abbreviation: E.D. Tenn.