*1 ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN CO. v. RAILWAY

BURLEY et al. Argued 15,1945. No. 160. November June Decided Mr. R. Conaghan petitioner. Paul Koptik

Mr. John Mr. Gerald Gately, H. with whom J. on brief, respondents. Rutledge opinion delivered Mr. Justice *2 Court.. brings arising complaint,1 cause, upon

This an amended important questions concerning for novel and decision representative, affect- authority bargaining of a collective Act of 1934. 48 Railway of the Labor ing operation 151 ff. The ultimate issues are 1185, § 45 U. S. C. Stat. authority, by the Act agent has virtue of whether such an accrued otherwise, compromise either to settle them for of ten or to submit monetary claims Adjustment Railroad by the National determination right, exclusion of their after the settlement Board to the decision, the Board’s adverse to assert them and after purpose. for that are for brought “pen- a suit claims alleged of the alty damages” starting for violation time agreement, varying $3,500 of a collective provisions aggregate amounting $65,274.00.2 in the $14,000, and judgment summary Court rendered The District holding adjudi- that the Board’s award was a carrier, final claims, within the union’s cation of seek and make, judicial precluding Board’s to review.3 judgment, Appeals Court of reversed 140 F. 2d 488, holding presented question that the record of fact jurisdictional allowed to cure defects were found Amendments Elgin, appeal. Co., J. Alderman v. & E. R. upon an earlier exist F. 2d 971. provision penalty damages. forth no The record sets But the alleges under the terms of each complaint day, “pay one-half, for an additional at time and plaintiffs is entitled day required daily he was regular for each to work con rate” at agreement’s trary terms. controversy that the was “I think submitted to

3 The court said: jurisdiction decided, and that it was Board, it had and that thereby. represented there and are bound plaintiffs were ... I Adjustment binding upon plain was ruling Board think the defendant, binding and that it is on this court tiffs as well as proceeding.” in this

whether the had union been authorized respondents “to negotiate, compromise and settle” the claims. We granted certiorari, 323 U. S. order to resolve the important questions affecting application and operation of the Act.

A important statement of the more facts will put the sharper perspective. issues in The controversy relates to operations petitioner’s “Whiting so-called Yard.” Prior to July 1934, respondents, or some them, em- were ployed by the Company private Standard Oil to do intra- plant switching Whiting, Indiana, plant. On that date work taken petitioner. over Until then switching began Standard Oil’s crews work each day at *3 in hours fixed advance management, which varied required. plant operations as yards 1934 petitioner’s

Prior to crews at all in Indiana began daily and Illinois work accordance with starting time contained Article of provisions agree- a collective between ment made petitioner the Brother- Trainmen, governing hood Railroad rules, of working yardmen. pay of conditions and rates Whiting

Upon yard transfer switching peti- to theretofore tioner, respondents employed by Standard Oil employees petitioner1 and became members of the July 24, 1934, Oh company Brotherhood. officials con- representatives engineers, ferred with the firemen concerning terms of yardmen employment. and the The acted for the yardmen. Apparently agree- Brotherhood on all except reached matters starting ment was time but, that, versions what transpired as to differ. Re- have spondents and the Brotherhood maintained that the including Article agreement, 6, became applicable to They say, however, them the transfer. upon that Article thirty days suspension assented to from 1934, adjust- work July company to enable to out 27, operations, gov- it plant’s accordingly ment August petitioner 26,1934. erned their relation with become did not that Article 6 insisted has company The it transfer respondents applicable than to fol- other 6, Article agreement apply made no 31, 1938, prior October closely possible, it low as eventually agreed place when the Brotherhood it and starting under circum- time, fixed crews on Whiting yard noted. stances to be long controversy true, a resulted. version is

Whichever practice, former al- to follow carrier continued reduced, though from the schedule were departures undertaking to conformity the oral ob- claims, The work went on without possible. serve it as far as account of complaints on interruption. But numerous departures through local officersof the Brother- were made Frequent by the slips employees. hood. Time were filed negotiations resulted in a place. took None however 1938. prior settlement October In affairs, respondents authorized the this state file with the Railroad complaint Brotherhood to National This Adjustment Board for of Article 6. was violation claim” done “statement of on November Williams, general signed was and filed chairman carrier, It grievance committee. asserted that hav- under the ing “placed the starting yardmen,” put had “failed to into effect the time Article 6, and denied violation provisions” of *4 agreed because the carrier had with justified either the Engineers formerly prevailing practice follow the by the claim that the work could done in no carrier’s be other way. intended to compliance. The submission was secure money prayer damages. There was no for Petitioner that Article not applicable. maintained 6 was Board, customary following procedure,4 dock- 3537, eted the claim as No. notified the carrier though informal, procedure, principally consists in written parties, perform statements or “submissions” filed which combined, argument pleading functions and evidence of and oral case, union that many others docketed at the same time, “assumed to be complete,” forwarded of copies to each the other’s submissions. The record does not disclose what until nearly years followed later. two 31, 1938, secretary

On October and Johnson, Williams Brotherhood, two of the grievance committee’s three an members, accepted offer petitioner’s made president, Rogers, to settle the claim. The settlement took the form Williams, proposal, a made letter by Rogers a claims, including settle 61 different some “Labor Board Docket No. time Starting engines of switch Whit- 3537— ing S. O. Yard.” Williams Johnson endorsed accept- for yardmen ance the Brotherhood and the on the letter. importance, pertinent portions Because of its set forth margin.5 day On the the settlement was concluded Garrison, the submissions thus made. See The National Railroad Adjustment Unique Agency Board: A (1937) Administrative 46 Yale 567, description procedure. L. for detailed J. See also Final Report Attorney General’s Committee on Administrative Pro- (1941) if.; cedure Administrative Procedure in Government Agencies, IV, Cong., Doe. Part Sen. No. 77th 1st Sess. Williams, general The letter was addressed to chairman of the Brotherhood, and dated October 1938. It stated: August my letter 18th tentatively

“Since in which I proposed grievance certain matters settlement of we have had further corre- spondence and conferences which have modified our decision in some Therefore, in order placed cases. whole matter be in concrete outlining proposals I form am below our to settle all cases except specified. as otherwise Starting No. 5—Labor Board Docket “Case time of switch #3537— Whiting

engines in S. 0. Yard. starting ninety day that the “Settled times trial n periodcommencing 15th, 1938, provided shall November times Agreement starting in Article of the Yardmen’s instead agreed upon being times and now If at the end heretofore followed. day ninety period Railway Company employees trial or its starting claim times fixed in 6 do Article not result in operation and in efficient economical satisfaction to our *5 byit letter and the of Williams advised Board Rogers and from the case be withdrawn requested that the jointly accordingly was done. docket, which" settlement, dispute further the á Notwithstanding through Brotherhood, Wil- 1939, In March, arose. list complete to furnish a of requested the carrier liams, times other than started at Whiting yard crews August 27,1934, from November fixed Article those effective. The 1938, when the settlement became 15, it list, stating to furnish a company declined at reason for request to understand the view of loss settlement. upshot filing of the was the of another claim Board, 18, Docket 7324, May 1939, by with No. on Williams, for the acting Brotherhood. This submission served, representatives industry Railway then of the and Com- representatives pany Yardmen, representatives and Engineers representatives Firemen will sit down and work starting meeting special time a schedule best suited out industry. requirements given you complete have letter a résumé of this all “We of, by you disposed which not heretofore been claims have filed on you represent proposed whom have behalf of very disposition of this letter a liberal cases involved. all the proposed predicated settlements on complete settlement and board, either pending before withdrawal all cases now under which except understood Case discussion this No. office Adjustment Board, will be left to a the National Railroad decision that in and it is understood event these settlements are further accepted listed this letter cover all claims similar the claims nature, covering other claims the same or like that no situations occurring prior presented arise will be when such claims causes [Emphasis the date settlement. added.] truly, “Yours M. “S. President. Rogers, "Accepted for Oct. the Yardmen: Chairman, H. T. Williams, General B. of R. “C. Secretary, T.” Johnson, “S. F. of R. B. *6 day’s

was “for one at time pay and one-half for each fore- helper day man and each for each they were required in yard work in Whiting (Standard service the Oil Com- in Yard, violation of the fixed pany) starting pro- time vided for Article No. 6 Agree- Yardmen’s January . effective 1, 1927, ment . . and applicable to (Standard Whiting Oil Company) Yardmen, July 27,1934, August 27, until 1934, dates November 14, 1938, inclusive.” only

The submission not maintained the applicability and accrual of the of Article 6 individual claims asserted. maintained It also that the settlement of October 31,1938, only fix starting effective was time for the future and had no effect to waive determine individual claims damages for accrued penalty prior to the settlement.6 The carrier’s submission reiterated position in Case It upon 3537. also relied No. settlement as precluding any claim, later assertion individual or collective, based occurrences to the prior date of the settlement. by The matter went to decision the Board. Under the procedure prescribed of deadlock, case cf. 3 (1), § First 5. The submission agreements 6 Cf. note stated: “There were no whereby payment reached for violation of Article No. 6 of the Yard Agreement men’s would be waived as a result of withdrawal of Labor Board Docket 3537. In that'case No. held no claim ‘pay fact for simply dispute ment time. It was a case to settle the as to the for right yard Whiting yard carrier’s crews in to work at force starting provided times other than the time for in Article . . . fixed before, No. 5—Labor “As stated Case Board Docket No. con- pay Whiting Consequently no claim Yardmen. tained it was Management question and the a not Committee before negotiation and starting claim cannot be made that a waiver time negotiated.” on matter which was not was made agreements relating that oral also denied to start-

The submission time, been made ing claimed the carrier to have at the time of the 1934, prescribed invalidate could effective “to transfer question of Article 6.” Williams however did written rule validity agreement, maintained, thirty-day as he of the verbal suspension.

[00] r—! made the First in. award was referee called It the Board’s sustained September 6, on Division “the to said were parties jurisdiction,7 found thereon,” held that “the hearing given due notice of agreement disposed parties shows that evidence carrier dated Octo here made letter of of the claim 31, 1938.” accepted by employees October 28, 1938, ber per findings.” claim was “denied Accordingly the present suit was Thereafter, on November *7 here after noted, the case comes instituted. As has been motion, summary rendered on the carrier’s judgment This president. of its vice supported affidavit and the compromise agreement award up effect set judgment sought. No. 7324 as bases for Case may and nature issues sum- range precise The they shaped upon respond- were perhaps marized as best They denied that motion. opposition ents’ to carrier’s authority had to release their or the union either Williams them for decision or submit individual claims of the Brotherhood’s They upon provisions relied Board. alleged which the rules,8 carrier constitution forbidding union officials to release knowledge, as to háve them to “with- to submit the Board claims or individual granted by to do authority so individual specific out authority denied that such themselves”; and members given. had been respect either effect of the award were validity and conclusive grounds, among them also other that challenged challenged jurisdiction way the Board in no The submissions Division. ofor regulate pro the union’s internal provisions Part See III. “general system changes wage in a or making in relation to cedure that to be followed agreement,” No. Rule or when schedule “satisfactorily adjust grievance committee fails local chairman The latter includes to it.” Rule No. 7. á any grievance referred general grievance may authorize their committee provision “a that lodges.” from local See received to handle all chairman 40. also note

respondents individually received no notice of the submis- hearing sion until after the award was that made; since the award denied a claim for money it was damages, exception within the (m), § 3 First which provides that “the awards shall be final binding upon both parties the dispute, except far so shall contain money award,” therefore did suit; not preclude this Act, and that the if construed to make the award conclu- sive, would Fifth violate the Amendment’s due process provision by denying judicial em- review defeated ployees, though allowing it employers. to defeated §Cf. 3 Washington Boswell, First (p), Terminal Co. (q); v.

F. 2d affirmed by equally an Court, divided S.U.

Finally respondents suggested sweepingly most may “merely Board an arbitrator,” act with the result “any thereunder are decisions void because it passes opinion on matters and bases its decision and its on law and fact is contrary public policy.” which The prayer was that the court overrule carrier’s motion for sum- *8 mary in judgment and, so, doing determine that release the not effective; adjudication was the award not a final was jurisdic- the and was void lack of claims; the award for subject or of the or the matter “because parties tion said award is Act under was entered unconstitutional.” which judgment squarely rested The District on the Court’s Docket No. It the award did conclusive effect it the regarded au- not indicate whether Brotherhood’s appear the claims thority to submit or, apart from the statute, the statute derived from as particular facts. But upon matter of law it must a upon that, pleadings held taken to have and the be fact was affidavits, presented, issue of material genuine no therefore it Proc., (c), that Fed. Rules Civ. Rule respondents had not individ- if, alleged, immaterial was specific authority Brotherhood Williams ually given the them represent decision claims their to submit hearings. no reference made however, Appeals,

The Court upon effect and its the award concerning issues deter- to have must taken judgment But its claims. contentions petitioner’s none of that implicitly mined respects is valid. these as- Appeals merely, as Court issues are

The com- authority to had the Brotherhood sumed, whether with the car- the claims and settle promise question presents record this on the whether rier and the District Court insists, and petitioner For fact. made, and validly was of the Board the award held, We do not reach judicial review. final, precluding is of the turn construction finality, which questions validity as their constitutional statutory provisions determined should not be questions Those construed.9 in our made, presents, which validly was award unless Respondents attack question. crucial opinion, ways. award three effectiveness legal validity and grounds. Respond- narrow validity on at Two strike no the dis- had submit Brotherhood say ents authority given Board without by the for decision pute authority and that no individually such themof by each were maintain entitled They also given. was proceedings before the individually notice have given. none Board sweeping contention most undercuts all third and concerning effects, the award’s whether for issues.

other In that the finality. award, substance validity or for nothing more than advisory an rendered, amounts when contention, upon language founded opinion. Co., Illinois Central 312 U. in Moore v. R. S. opinion *9 entire scheme for the settlement of the Act’s regards wholly involving conciliatory character, (q). (m), (o), (p), 3 First 9 Cf. § legal effectiveness, consequence no element of with the entirely parties accept free or ignore Board’s decision. put

At the outset we aside this broadest contention legisla as inconsistent with Act’s terms, purposes history.10 The tive Moore case involved no con question cerning validity legal or the effectiveness an award when rendered.11 Nor did it purport to determine that legal obligations through the Act creates no an award or from the Apart otherwise. affirmance equal division Washington Boswell, Terminal supra, Co. v. both prior and later decisions here are wholly inconsistent with such Virginian a view of effects. Cf. System R. Co. v. Fed eration, 515; 300 U. S. Texas & N. O. Railway R. Co. v. 548;12 Clerks, 281 U. S. Switchmen’s Union v. National Board, Mediation S.U. 297; General Committee v. 10Cf. Part I. nothing “purports away It was held that in the Act to take jurisdiction controversy

the courts to determine wrongful a over a discharge finding filing an prerequisite to make administrative a court,” 634; a suit in 312 U. employee’s S. at and therefore the suit against prior could be maintained the carrier without resort to the Adjustment Among assigned Board. the reasons was that ma chinery provided settling disputes for was not philosophy “based on a legal compulsion” system peaceful adjustment but created “a for voluntary mediation in its nature.” problem presented Adjustment pro- was whether the Board judicial cedure either preliminary was exclusive or was an essential proceedings jurisdiction. primary within the doctrine These were questions entirely not determinable the criterion of whether the procedure wholly advisory conciliatory For, is in character. con- might ceivably, Congress taking merely have made the of the Board’s advisory opinion precedent condition asking judicial relief; and, conversely, allowing prior that relief without resort to the Board necessarily action, does make taken, merely the Board’s when advisory. 12Thus, primary commands, one of the judicially statute’s enforce able, repeated duty upon found declaration parties all negotiate to a Virginian 26; its settlement. See note

722 v. Co., Committee 323; U. S. General 320 M.-K.-T. R. Co., S. 338. 320 Southern U. Pacific

I dis- disputes grievances over The difference between making agreements collective concerning of putes large It has assumed railway labor affairs. traditional 1934, of substan- Railway Labor Act importance jurisdiction and It tively divides procedurally.13 of Adjustment of the Board those functions them distinct characters. Board, giving their Mediation agent played by It affects the to be parts also represented first in employees, negotiations and the quite in conference and later different settlement procedures disposing which the Act of the two creates 3, types dispute. § of Cf. 4. § 2,§ The statute first marks the distinction which among purposes: five general “(4) states as the Act’s prompt orderly for the all provide settlement of dis concerning rules, of putes pay, working rates or condi provide for the tions; (5) prompt orderly settle disputes growing ment of all out or out of agreements interpretation application covering working pay, rules, conditions.” The two rates sorts sharply distinguished,14 are though there are Nevertheless, common treatment. it is points clear from the itself, history Act of railway from the labor dis Federation, System 515; cf. Switchmen’s Union v. 300 U. R. Co. v. S. Board, Mediation Com 297, 300, 320; 320 U. National General S. Co., 331, duty M.-K.-T. R. 320 U. S. 334. mittee v. This is not agree possibility merely faith perfunctory. Good exhaustion System Virginian R. Federa Co. v. required to fulfill it. Cf. ment is Co., Toledo, P. & tion, supra, at Trainmen v. W. R. 548, 550; U. S. stages statutory procedure At successive other duties 56 if. (b), 6, imposed. Cf. 5 First 10. §§ in notes 4 and 15. cited Cf. the references Hughes Board, Tool Co. v. Labor 38; Part II also Cf. text at note 69, 72, F. 2d putes legislative and from the history various statutes which have dealt with them,15 Congress has major drawn lines of difference between the two classes of controversy.

The first relates disputes over the formation of collec- agreements tive or efforts They to secure them. arise where there nois such or it is sought where change one, the terms of and therefore the issue not is whether an existing agreement controversy. controls the They look acquisition rights to the future, of for the not rights assertion of past. claimed to have in the vested class, however, contemplates second the existence of a agreement already or, any concluded at rate, a situation in bring which no effort is made about change a formal in terms one. The or to create new either to application relates the meaning proper or provision a particular with reference to a situa- specific tion toor an omitted case. In the latter event the claim is founded employment relation, some incident of the one, independent asserted those covered the collec- agreement, g., personal tive e. claims on account of injuries. In either rights case the claim to accrued, is merely to have new created for the future. ones general

In the difference between what regarded traditionally major as the the minor disputes railway large labor world.16 The former present issues Hearings 4; in the references note See cited before on Committee Cong., Sess.; Commerce 73d Hearings Interstate on H. R. 2d Cong., before Committee on Interstate Commerce S. on 73d 2d Pennsylvania Sess.; Board, R. v. 72; Co. Railroad Labor 261 U. S. Pennsylvania System Pennsylvania Co., Federation v. R. 267 U. S. 203; Brotherhood, 548; Texas R. v. Virginian & N. O. Co. 281 U. S. System Federation, v. R. Co. S. 300 U. 515. (also Cf. the references cited in note Commissioner Coordi nator) Eastman, very largely who drafted the 1934 amendments, said testifying hearings concerning at House Committee them: disputes concerning changes “Please pay, note rules, rates working may Adjust- conditions not be so referred the National [to which strikes ordinarily consequent

about arise with the traffic interruptions sought the Act to avoid. Because they more consequences often involve those and because they seek than to to create rather enforce contractual rights, they entirely have been left for settlement adjustment. processes noncompulsory hand, minor involv- disputes, on other so-called grievances, differences which inevi- ing affect the smaller major tably carrying agreements out of appear in the policies incidentally employ- or arise course of an maladjustments They represent specific ment. They quality. produce detailed or individual seldom strikes, though exaggerated they may instances do so.17 minor comparatively Because of their character and the causing interruption of their general improbability traffic, and of 1934 Act sets them peaceful relations *12 major and for apart disputes provides very different treatment. statute amended marks out two distinct

Broadly, the respec- of two classes dispute, for settlement of routes stages. consisting of The treats tively, each three Act requiring negotiation alike in types dispute of two and step contemplat- first toward therefore settlement voluntary action for at this ing stage, both the sense sought agreement is and cannot be compelled. To through handled, unadjusted, be when Board], ment are to but adjustment The board is to handle process national of mediation. grievances growing or out of the inter- only eases out the minor Hearings agreements.” before Committee pretation application Cong., Sess., 47; on 73d 2d cf. H. R. on Interstate Commerce testimony Harrison, 51, 59, principal And pp. 49, 62. see also id., 80-83; Committee, proponent, before the House at and union Hearings Committee, before Committee on before the Senate Cong., Sess., 33, on 73d 2d S. Interstate Commerce testimony in note 16. Harrison, and cited Cf. of Eastman agreement, induce however, duty to negotiate is imposed for both grievances major disputes.18

Beyond the initial stages negotiation conference, however, the procedures diverge. “Major go disputes” first to mediation under auspices National Medi ation Board; if fails, then rejection to acceptance or of arbitration, 7; Toledo, §cf. Trainmen Co., v. & R. P. W. 321 U. S. 50; finally to possible presidential interven tion to adjustment. secure § 10. their For settlement the statutory scheme throughout retains the traditional voluntary processes of negotiation, mediation, voluntary arbitration, Every facility bringing conciliation. about is provided and pressures mobilizing public opinion applied. are parties required procedures designed submit successive induce agreement. First (b). only § 5 But compulsions go procedures insure that those are exhausted before resort can had self-help. No is authority empowered to intended, decide the and no is such unless parties agree themselves to arbitration. course prescribed for the settlement of beyond very stage. initial different Thereafter the Act the parties wholly free, does leave at their own agree agree. not to On the will, to one of contrary, purposes provide the main the 1934 amendments was to process a more effective settlement.19 parties Prior to 1934 the free all to go were at times disputes. court to settle Notwithstanding these con- *13 each Act, intent of the 1926 also had if trary the power, 18 12; 26, 27, obligation *14 adopted The procedure is not one of mediation and con- only, ciliation like that provided for major disputes under auspices of the Mediation Board. Another tribunal of very different character “jurisdic- is established tion” to determine concerning and make awards them. Each party it may submit for de- cision, whether or not provided the other he has willing, himself discharged duty negotiation.23 the initial 3§ (i). Rights First hearing, notice, participation given. representation are 3 First In some (j). in- § judicial stances review and enforcement of awards are expressly provided contemplated. (p); § 3 First (m). cf. 3 First When not done, pur- § this is the Act ports to make the decisions “final and binding.” Board’s (m). First § procedure is in very terms and purpose different system

from the preexisting system of local That boards. nothing was fact and effect more than one for what call respondents1 “voluntary arbitration.” No dispute by agreement could be settled unless submitted of all parties. submitted, When one was deadlock was common way Adjustment there no escape. Board unadjusted disputes deadlocked. These have become so numerous that on several occasions the have resorted to the issuance interstate, of strike ballots and threatened to commerce interrupt adjustment. necessary order to secure an This has made for the President of the United States to intervene an and establish emer- investigate gency board to the controversies. This condition should peace in the uninterrupted be corrected interest of industrial transportation bill, therefore, provides service. This for the estab- adjustment disputes lishment of a national board of to which these may adjusted be submitted if shall not have been in conference parties.” Rep. Cong., H. Sess., between the No. 73d 2d 3. Cf. testimony Eastman, Hearings also of Coordinator before Commit- Cong., Sess., Interstate Commerce on H. R. tee on 73d 2d expressly right (i) Section 3 First conditions the to move from Adjustment negotiation proceedings into before the Board “fail adjustment manner,” by negotiation. ing e., i. to reach an *15 grievances was created to remove the settlement of stagnating process this and bring general them within a plan and inclusive of decision.24 The aim was not to dis- agreement. pense with It was to add decision where safeguard fails and thus to the public as well private against interests the harmful effects preexisting scheme.

II in agent’s power stages The collective to act various statutory procedures is part procedures those necessarily related to in function, scope them purpose. negotiate

The statute itself authority vests exclusive to agreements concerning major and to conclude disputes duly agent. in Cf. R. Virginian selected Co. System Federation, v. supra.25 statutory Since the entire testimony Harrison, Coordinator Eastman and Mr. See the stated, hearings, cited in 16. the Senate Committee note The latter at 33,35: pp. years to what question for the last 14 this has been a

"... our . . going to have to settle . we kind are of boards boards; . . . always sought national the railroads have We have system boards, regional . . . Most of the sought boards boards any . . deadlocked on number present law . have . . . under growing up fast in our that there was As a result of of cases. might very develop that well into sub- industry serious condition a railway interruption . . . interstate commerce These stantial always opposed compulsory determination organizations have labor long got ex- lived time and a lot of have their controversies. We develop these cases out of we know that minor that perience, and ready now freely, and we are we make ... concede contracts that get grievances go having to a board and them can risk our that we organizations these are a contribution that determined, and that is arrange- going get hodgepodge if we willing make. ... give up right, because we . then we don’t want to . . ment law get right we will a measure of we feel that only up because give added.) suggest (Emphasis machinery we here.” justice this Supply Corp. Board, Labor v. 321 U. S. Medo Photo also Cf. Board, S. Labor U. 678; Co. v. J. I. Case procedure settling major disputes only is aimed at securing agreement and not decision, parties unless the agree arbitration, authority exclusive rep- includes resentation of only stage conference, mediation, but also the later ones of arbitration and conciliation. agent’s

Whether or not the exclusive extends also grievances, the settlement of conference or pro- before the more ceedings Board, ques- difficult presents tions. statute does not so Nor expressly declare. questions does it these functions. The explicitly exclude therefore are to be determined from the by implication *16 pertinent provisions. are ones to relating rights These participation negotiations of in for settlement and in proceedings before the in They part Board. are identical provisions with the relating major to but disputes, not entirely so; and the are highly differences material. questions of power bargain concerning griev- to

ances, is, that to for agreements conclude their settlement, represent aggrieved and to in employees proceedings before the Board are not But they identical. obviously closely in related in statutory scheme and fact. If the agent power has exclusive to griev- settle by agreement, strong though ances inference, necessarily conclusive, follow for its would exclusive aggrieved to represent employee before the Board. The converse also would be true. it will Accordingly be questions convenient to consider the two together. provisions affecting

The primary duty to treat are 2§in First Second, imposing found and the duty generally disputes, major as to all both minor, and 2 and §§ Sixth together (i), and 3 First proviso with the 2 to Fourth, § apply which specially grievances. to These sections in part material are set forth the margin,26 except the 26 duty By First, 2 shall carriers, officers, “It be the all their § of employees every agents’, and to exert reasonable effort to make and

730 “Provided, nothing which is as That follows: proviso per- Act shall be construed a carrier from prohibit this employee, individually, mitting representatives an or local employees conferring management during of concerning agreements working pay, rules, rates maintain of and conditions, disputes, arising appli- settle and to all whether out of the agreements otherwise, any cation of such or in order to avoid inter- By ruption Second, disputes commerce ...” “All between § considered, and, employees or carriers and their a carrier its or shall be decided, possible, expedition, repre- with all conference between if designated by confer, respectively, sentatives so to and authorized employees the carrier carriers interested in the or thereof added.) dispute(Emphasis creating These are the basic sections duty, major applicable disputes, minor, all to carriers employees alike. provisions affecting general duty treat are of 2 Other those § purposes Act, Third, “representatives, that this be shall designated parties respective without the' interference” employ carrier”; persons be other “need not § any Fourth, majority employees “the craft class of shall that representative right have the who be the to determine shall Act”; purposes Eighth or class and of § craft employees by printed “every notify carrier shall notices . . . disputes and its will handled in all between the carrier added.) (Emphasis requirements this Act.” accordance with the (i). applies specially grievances, as does First Section Sixth § provides: case of between a carrier or former “In *17 arising grievances employees, out or out its or their carriers and of agreements concerning interpretation application rates the or of of duty desig- be working conditions, it shall pay, rules, of or of representative representatives of such carrier or and or carriers nated days receipt employees, ten after notice of within of a such of respect party dispute, such part on of either desire confer (i) 3 . .” First is place . Section as follows: specify time and employee group employees disputes or of and a between an “The of growing interpreta- of or out out or carriers carrier concerning pay, rules, agreements rates of or application of or tion unadjusted including conditions, pending cases working on up Act, usual approval shall be handled in the manner of this date designated including operating of the carrier the chief officer to and adjustment failing in this but, to reach an disputes; to handle such

731 time, working hours without or prohibit loss a carrier from furnishing transportation free to its employees while engaged in the organization.”27 business of a labor (Emphasis added.)

Relating to participation in the Board’s proceedings, concluding addition to the sentence (i), 3 see § First note First (j), may § 3 as follows: “Parties be heard either in person, by counsel, by other representatives, or may respectively elect, and the several divisions Adjustment give Board shall due notice of all hear- ings employee and the or carrier in any dispute carriers involved them.” submitted to (Emphasis added.) urges

Petitioner that, notwithstanding proviso (j), provisions § 3 First the effect of the taken as whole agent is to make the collective the employees’ exclusive for the representative disputes, settlement of all both major and minor, and of the latter “whether out arising of the application agreements of such or oth- [collective] erwise.” The argument First, rests 2 primarily upon §§ Second, Third, 3 Fourth, Sixth, (i). and First It empha- duty sizes the carrier’s to treat with the representative, 2 Eighth as reinforced §§ and Tenth.28 squarely deny

Petitioner does not the aggrieved employee may confer with the carrier’s local officials either disputes may manner, petition parties referred appropriate Adjustment party to the division either Board with supporting of the facts and all bearing a full statement data added.) (Emphasis disputes.” 27 Eighth proviso part makes this Section contract of em employee, between the carrier and each ployment 2 Tenth § misdemeanor for the carrier it a to refuse to makes observe it. Eighth incorporates provisions Third, Fourth Section §§ employee’s employment. Fifth in each contract of Section 2 makes it a misdemeanor for the carrier to fail or Tenth refuse to com Third, Fourth, Fifth, ply Eighth terms of Seventh and with the §§ note 27. See *18 732 through

personally representatives local union in ac- proviso cordance with the Fourth. right, § But this if exists, regarded apparently it is at most one to be heard, petitioner’s since in power view the to make settle- by agreement in exclusively ment is vested the collective agent. Cf. and First (i). §§ Sixth agent, statute,

The collective as the carrier conceives the is the “representative [s], designated authorized to Second, confer” within without dis- meaning § major It disputes. tinction between and minor is likewise “representative, Act,” purposes again for the types dispute, without distinction between two parties” § the selection respective of which “the Third designated also “the forbids the other to interfere. It is whom, by 2 representative” Sixth, § required concerning to treat the carrier is carry considered to over conference, provision into § 3 disputes requires The latter over (i). griev- First manner be handled the usual up ances “shall to and operating officer including the chief carrier disputes.” handle such designated to party,” this view “either In accordance with within the authorizing (i) further of 3 First provision reference of § “by petition Adjustment Board dispute to the carrier or either refers parties party,” col- aggrieved employee acting not to the agent, lective other- Hence, agent. “parties” by the collective wise than meaning. given similar (j) 3 First § used Conse- agent has exclusive also quently represent aggrieved and to Board submit it. employees before been adopted, apparently,

Petitioner’s view has in the general formally if not the declared practice, policy of the seems, has Adjustment this, Board. And been due to consistently employees’ taken position repre- Board, opposition on the sentatives over carrier

733 representatives.29 unions, apparently, petitioner like in case, interpret the Act as not two contemplating systems disputes, wholly distinct for the settlement of one major disputes, wholly collective for the other individual In becomes agent for minor ones. this view the collective agreement by making to and its party it, the collective interest of the collective interest does representative as ends. It party not cease when that function remains a agreement, representative, made; after it is such consequently, capacity in that and for the protection interest, the collective is concerned with the manner agreement may interpreted which the be and applied. Accordingly, urges that the petitioner statute, by both by purpose, its terms and confers the collective agent grievances, the same exclusive to deal with power by negotiation contract, whether presentation agreement fails, given the Board when as is respect with major aggrieved And the disputes. employee’s rights rights individual action limited to hearing before possibly the union also carrier. think that view of the effects,

We such a statute’s so deprive aggrieved far it would employee of effective any hearing voice settlement and of individual before would be Board, contrary to the clear import of its provisions policy. and to its

It would be difficult to believe Congress that intended, amendments, submerge wholly the individ- minority interests, ual and all to act concern- ing them, collective interest agency, not only in forming the govern contracts which their employment relation,30 but also in giving effect to them and to all other Agencies, Cf. Administrative Procedure in Government Sen. Doc. IV, Cong., Sess., Part 77th 1st Co., Cf. Steele Louisville & N. R. Tunstall 192; S. v. U. v. Firemen, Corp. Brotherhood Locomotive 210; Wallace 323 U. S. v. Board, Labor 323 U. S. 248. Acceptance of such a view relation. that incidents purpose. For this expression clearest require would all Congress preexisting nullified had would mean employment, in relation to their act rights of workers right to consult the fundamental even including perhaps agent might except as the employer, with one's validity, the conclusion questions of Apart from permit. consequences intended such could ac- Congress *20 clear that no other construction if it were only cepted statutory aims.31 would achieve require not such construction. do provisions The Act’s expressly preclude to it. The contrary they appear theOn “an right in terms reserves the 2 Fourth proviso §to management; to with and individually” confer employee give to only requires not Board “due (j) 3 First § hearings employee . . . involved notice of all to- the any .,” provides “parties” . but to dispute submitted . counsel, repre- “either in other person, be heard sentatives, may respectively elect.” if inapposite the collective provisions

These would be unincorporated and an asso- agent, normally a labor union contemplated. organiza- were Such ciation, exclusively “in appear person.” do not and cannot and be heard tions provision employee Nor would the for notice “to the . . . in any dispute” appropriate be either or neces- involved sary. only If representative given the collective were

31 important In this connection it is to recall that the Act does not contemplate shops, any the existence closed to the extent at rate agreements. Fourth; is the carrier forbidden to make such Cf. 2 § 1942). Atty. (Dec. 29, Cong. 12,402; Op. Gen., Rec. 40 No. 59 Accordingly unorganized workers members of the interests of minority always unions are concerned the solution. These are not designated majority union. adverse to the interests of or of they may cited in But be so or even hostile. Cf. the authorities regard completely depriving persons note To the statute as so affecting very livelihood thus situated of voice in affairs their means of very questions. would raise serious submission, notice, appearance representa- rights to language aptly designed rights more limit those tion, so readily essential the purpose. was available was fully pro This accords terms of the conclusion quali to It to be appears § viso Fourth. intended as fication, in respect transportation, to loss of time free against the preceding prohibitions of the section’s carrier’s organizations labor financial and other and to giving aid influence their an effort to union affiliations.32 However, language clearly contemplates also right employee’s manage individual to confer with the grievance preserved. ment about own There is his some history legislative indication this effect.33 The right is so fundamental that we do believe the purpose destroy it. Cf. Op. Atty. Gen., 59, pp. No. 5, 6 Hughes Board, (Dec. 1942); Tool Labor Co. v. F. 2d 69.

Rights of rights conference are not identical with settlement. But the purpose of and the duty conference agreement. treat is about bring right and the *21 obligation in the to negotiations to share are relevant their might right the Conceivably aim. statute confer the to negotiations, is, in the to be heard participate before concluded, upon either the any agreement collective aggrieved employee employees, or the or at agent final conferring upon the other the voice the time same is, terms the This in determining the settlement. in this parties case. position by the taken each effect, say has been concerning differ where final But object. language in the primary This undoubtedly organiza engaged a labor in the business of concluding clause, “while travelling upon union busi literally only tion,” applies to provision preceding apparent application to the ness, and has no management. right confer with employee’s to relating to the individual on R.H. on Interstate Commerce Hearings Committee before Sess., 44, 89. Cong., 7650, 73d 2d to given Petitioner maintains it has been

vested. it has been left with them. Respondents say union. In guarantees aggrieved we the Act the view take merely right more to be employee than heard say union and carrier. We cannot that the terms proviso 2 Fourth and of First so lim- (j) § are § Moreover, expressly § ited. First states (p) statutory to enforce aggrieved suit an award favor of an employee may brought by petitioner,” “the presumably agent collective All employee. pro- of these contemplate visions participation effective the statutory aggrieved procedures by the employee.

His rights, share in the negotiations, heard to be Board, before the to have notice, bring the enforce ment suit, rights would become more shadow than of if the union, by substance coming agreement with carrier, could foreclose his claim altogether at the threshold statutory procedure. This would be true in any employee’s case where the ideas of settlement appropriate might differ the union’s. But the drastic effects in his rights curtailment of act in preexisting such matters protection would be types most obvious in two his.own one, grievance cases: where the arises from incidents the employment covered agreement, a collective in which presumably collective interest would be only remotely, all; other, affected if at where the inter employee est an not a member of the union and the interest, or that of the itself, union opposed hostile. That the statute purport does not to discrim inate between these and other cases strong furnishes support believing was not to purpose vest final and of settlement agent.34 exclusive the collective *22 34 Congress by Cf. and text. It to be doubted that note 37 grievances generally language concerning intended, inclusive used for agent instance, give power to the collective exclusive to settle a Congress determine case whether not We need grievances altogether to leave settlement of intehded agent workers, excluding the collective to the individual it to entirely except may specifically authorize act them, intended it also to have voice in settle- representative ment as collective interest. Cf. Co., Hughes 981, Tool L. R. B. modified Matter N. Hughes Board, enforced, supra. Tool Co. Labor v. not expressly does from statute exclude agent’s duty power to treat or to submit the collective Both collective individual interests the Board. to where, in this case, concerned the settlement may be alike, and settlement dispute concerns all members single or cause of exclusively upon a common issue hangs agreement.35 from the terms of arising a collective independently affecting arising agreement, of the grievance collective majority only to claim the union and nonunion men whose were hostile. not the carrier’s affects But whether or violation all the members immediately alike, group present so as to create basis resulting each, violation, though misinterpre claims from rights of tation, present threat to the similar all would constitute a Hughes Board, Tool Co. Labor covered the contract. Cf. v. (Dec. 1942). Op. Atty. Gen., supra, 72, 74; 59, pp. No. ultimately leave such cases to the several choices To settlements according regard members, his each own desire without interest, mean each effect the collective would affected right terms have the to choose his own and to determine worker would meaning effect the collective for himself. join doing Necessarily, free with him in the carrier would be so bargain employee for whatever terms eco- and thus each against own, might pitted accept. his him to power, induce nomic necessarily agreement effective, to make the result would be interpretations alike, according indi- but to whatever varied to all motivations, might willing equally workers, varied vidual agent agreement, accept. give to make the To any interpretation go voice whatever in its would but exclude it from destroying application. its uniform far toward *23 Those interests combine in almost variety infinite of rela- tive in importance relation to particular grievances, from in situations which the two are hostile inor which they bear little or no relation of substance to each other and opposed to others which are identified.36 Congress made no effort to deal specifically with these variations.37 But whether or not the agent collective has rights, independently of the aggrieved employee’s author- ization, to act representative as of the collective interest protection any and for its settlement, whether agree- ment in proceedings or Board, before the an award cannot against aggrieved be effective as employee unless he represented individually proceedings in accord- rights ance with the appearance notice and or repre- given him by (j). § sentation First Those rights are any and distinct from separate agent collective may represent have collective interest. For an award employee’s rights, to affect the therefore, more must be agent than that appeared shown collective pur- to act for him. It must ported appear that in some legally way he authorized it to act in sufficient his behalf.38 36 Depending upon substantive character the claim, .the otherwise, collective foundation its intrinsically nature, substantial or insubstantial the number of affected, unsettled, length time it remains the number of claims allowed so run, perhaps factors, grievance may other large a matter of group moment to as a whole or of little or no and, concern to it may be, importance identical of either or converse to the individual directly or individuals affected. 37Congress primarily was concerned with differences between the employees, carrier and the not with among differences the latter or them, them, agent. between or some of and the collective The statute eye therefore was not drawn with an problems, levelled to these except as representatives, Fourth; to choice of cf. Ninth; § § note 34. 38Authority might ways be conferred in whatever would be suffi according cient generally accepted or “common law” rules for the creation of agency, conceivably an by specific given authorization view, contrary indicated, as has been re- Petitioner’s part of the collective gards settlement indistinguishable making from the power, bargaining major assumption ignores agreements. *24 func- Act has drawn between those difference the which for modes'provided in the defining them and tions, both settlement. future, alone, reference to or for the without

To settle collectively, past, bargain the is fact to effect agreement. au- make collective That is, that to a to independently power conferred of thority is part of the to contract grievances, power with as deal working or “concerning pay, rules, of conditions.” rates settling new power agreement to make a It includes concerning or dispute coverage the future a for agreement. For meaning preexisting is bargaining power by not exhausted the collective changing it being exercised; once covers the terms agreement making as as in the existing well one an place. first changing not them with it cover retroactive

But does rights or For it is precisely accrued claims. effects upon making only between settlements effective difference making retroactively them effective the future for rights having already claimed as accrued conclude which between statutory boundary collective bar- marks the grievances. by the settlement latter gaining “interpretation includes the explicit applica- definition regard this existing agreements. part To tion” of it with bargaining power making identifies the collective agreements having only prospective operation; and new authority by general grievance, each orally writing settle or in arise, by assenting such might grievances as given to settle such thereby accepting a becoming a union and authority member of by authorizing to make such or rules provision in constitution its settlements. basic statute’s distinction doing obliberates so functions.39

between those therefore, as collective had power, The Brotherhood carrier, agent make an effective question starting time, only, the future to settle the Act itself. In derived deal- was required not was ing scope, within its the carrier to look to ascertain further provisions than Act’s union’s follow, petitioner authority. But it assumes, does with the deal right it had the same union concern- ing past. aspect That not part of statutory agent’s the collective exclusive authority. otherwise might If to exclude it severs what be consid- clearly one organic, ered which severance Congress it has made, make and we think could is one defini- provisions tion individual If, *25 participation their settlement. moreover, as peti- make settlement tioner urges, may less convenient power than if to were deal vested exclu- although “interpretation true The distinction holds or applica past, as the well as may as it tion” future look to the often does. It asserted, right goes whether in the source of the an to antecedent sought. agreement presently only one difference impor or to presently those as involved, well g., tant for other applica issues e. tion limitations. of statutes of wiped ignored or to be out merely The distinction is because a may look both particular past and to the settling grievances procedure special future. The was created disposed be they should intended differently because was working rules, or disputes pay, conditions,” over “rates which were agent’s exclusively the collective authority. committed impor- One aggrieved employee’s preserved rights tant difference partici- Congress stages settlement. pate all therefore, in when it contemplated rights, something preserved those more than collective make representation action 'settlement effective for the individual employee’s past. that rights It follows be cannot agreement between by merely nullified carrier and the union. rights, statutory may which he They are exercise independently or in his to exercise behalf. union authorize the may consequence in sively agent, the collective outweigh the considerations admitted. But it cannot Congress think has taken equal greater force which we right workman’s into in the individual preserving account to more than mere amounting protest to have a voice arising employment. the settlement claims out of his occupied posi- From fact Brotherhood that the tion had bargaining agent of collective and as such not en- future, therefore, petitioner to deal for the was concerning authority titled to any assumption make the past represent to settle the claims accrued for or to exclusively proceedings the claimants before Board. Accordingly for the union to act in their behalf with con- effect, any clusive them over and authorization above authority given essential. statute was

Ill urges from the that, apart statute, Petitioner the facts respondents of record show as a matter of law that au- claims, thorized the Brotherhood to settle the to submit Board, represent and to them in them its proceed- ings. Respondents deny any of authority these respects given, either individual authorization or by virtue Brothérhood’s constitution and rules; insist that the record presents questions these of fact. issues Stripped influences, of its petitioner’s statutory argu- ment comes substance this. It is undisputed that *26 August 27, 1934, 23, 1936, November when the in Docket was complaint filed, respondents No. 3537 made slips time and many complaints out filed with the carrier’s through local officials local officers the Brotherhood on departures account of from the schedule of Article 6. The the question applicability article’s a matter of dis- between cussion company the Brotherhood and officials from the time of the transfer in 1934. admit Respondents

having meeting the of their Brotherhood, authorized at lodge, complaint local file in Docket No. the 3537 and compliance that this was filed in full with complaint Brotherhood’s constitution and rules. The settlement of October, 1938, consequent withdrawal the claim in Docket by official, No. were made same Wil- whom liams, respondents had authorized file the claim whom, effect, with both the regulations and the required Brotherhood’s petitioner to concerning deal the matter.40 Moreover, the complaint May, Docket filed in by No. was filed Wil- liams and in the same manner the complaint in Docket No. 3537.

From these petitioner facts concludes that respondents authorized the Brotherhood to settle the claims and to represent them before the Board. In its view, all of these subject transactions related to the same matter, namely, whether Article was applicable the Whiting yard, the only being difference the relief sought in the two proceedings was and that difference same; is not material. agreement, part, provides: which The collective Article is a controversy arising application “Any as to the of the rules herein agreed upon up by general grievance . . . shall be taken . . general superintendent carrier, with committee “and agree upon satisfactory settlement, event of their failure to may appeal (Emphasis President.” added.) Committee Vice says only provision general

Petitioner bound it to deal committee. upon Rule 10 Petitioner also relies Brotherhood’s constitu- general imposing duty: tion rules same may “Whatever action be taken the General Grievance Com- Adjustment any system meaning mittee or Board of within the Lodges General Rules shall be law the above on that road until Appeals, any and unless reversed the Board of if member re- vote or abide the action of fuses to such General Grievance Com- Adjustment, expelled mittee or Board of he shall be from the Brother- obligation.” hood for violation of also note 8.

See *27 Respondents concerning differ the effect of these facts they allege and others They set forth. that under the Brotherhood’s constitution and rules neither Williams and Johnson nor the general grievance committee could “revise or change general wage a ‘schedule’ or concern- ing pay, working conditions, rates of nor unless authorized by majority to do of the lodges, by majority so vote vote of the in the membership system”; that claims of individual compensation members back could not be released specific authority given without individually; authority given; that no such was and that the carrier knowledge They had of these limitations. further allege notify that Williams and Johnson failed to them of the settlement, by-laws required;41 deny they that settlement, proceedings knew the Docket 7324 made, or the award until after the award was when they promptly repudiated They say it.42 accordingly that authority Williams acted without from them directly or through regulations the Brotherhood’s in submitting and presenting claims; and that the award is invalid not only for reason but also because no notice of the given to them. proceeding parties

It is are at apparent upon odds to be drawn from legal inferences facts and their rather the facts Respond- effects than themselves. deny, petitioner apparently does not claim, ents any individually time specifically at authorized compromise the Brotherhood its officials to their claims money due or to for them exclusively act Board concerning those claims. If there is an proceedings issue regard they say, agree did This, was because Williams not money claims, give waiving since he did ment them shortly required money after the settlement filed the notice with the Board. Cf. note 6. claims signed Respondents also attack the settlement because it was not grievance committee, grievance member of the third the local objection chairman. This borders on the frivolous. *28 obviously

in it respect concerning this is one of fact which findings required. evidence would be real issues, we the come down to record, view respondents assented, effect, whether in the legal to final of by settlement their the union or to exclusive claims in representation by any following ways: it (1) by the complaints making through (2) by officials; local union authorizing the Brotherhood in complaint to submit the 3537; Docket No. (3) virtue of the Brotherhood’s regulations; (4) by agreement. virtue the collective agreement

The collective could not be effective to de- prive employees rights. of their individual Otherwise those rights brought would be within the collective bar- by a exercise of gaining power power, contrary mere that purport and effect the Act as them from excepting scope reserving aggrieved. them to the individuals In of that clearly view reservation the Act does not con- template rights that saved may merely be nullified between the carrier union. and the say

Nor can we matter as a that law the mere complaints through making local Brotherhood officials amounted to final authorization to union to settle the represent claims employees or before Board. Neither statute nor regulations the union’s purported give these effects to conduct. The slips time were apparently filed themselves. The only record shows fact that general complaints con- cerning departures made through were local officials. required More than would be unequivocal to disclose right intention surrender the individual’s to participate in give the settlement and to union final voice mak- together exclusive ing represent him Board. The making complaints before the in this only preliminary negotiation manner was and equivocal at the most. say, present

Nor we record, can state of the regulations the union’s unequivocally gen- authorized the grievance eral committee its chairman either to settle or to act claims representative exclusive before Board. parties rely upon apparently conflicting provisions ifor, they are actually conflict, upon not then different ones, the is in applicability of some of which dispute. respondents rely Thus which Rule change existing agreements required forbids without the lodges system vote of local membership, petitioner says applicable the rule in this case. Whether or not the rule is of fact applicable question is a light may to be in the determined whatever evidence the other. Conceiv- presented to sustain the one view or *29 ably may grievance be intended to where no apply only is or to the of other involved settlement in the disputes say, as well. But we cannot absence available, that on its face light further than is now or the other. only rule bears the one construction the other Similar in connection with difficulties arise regulations. forth in Only of them are set some although record, the full constitution and rules printed proper by petitioner. were of the record part made regulations require rules and do not to members purport through negotiate grievances only to and settle their general only griev- committee can act when a union. lodge. ance referred to it local The rules are ex- is conflict, them to involve tensive, parts appear possible effects, their the mode of concerning differ parties may largely their affected operation quite obviously in which in applied practice. the manner are legal Their effect are construction and matters of some not be undertaken in complexity and should a vacuum apart relating from the to their in application prac- facts legal tice. Because both factual and inferences would be determining regulations involved in effects bring rights about a of the individual to take surrender part in the in the settlement and Board’s proceedings, of law in a matter

those cannot be determined as effects the first instance here. authorizing the

Nor matter of law that say can we as a more, Docket without constituted submission in No. agreement make the of settlement authorization either to No. 7324. The represent or to Docket light matter in the view requires explication some concerning aggrieved we of an em- rights have taken In ployee grievances. view no the settlement If agrees. valid he settle- settlement can be made unless negotiation by agreement fails, right ment he after has submit If Board decision. it is rights notice, hearing submitted he has and individual representation according his choice. rights

All these separate distinct, though closely delegation related. A surrender or of one not would result in surrender of the others as a matter of law neces- sarily matter as a particular fact. Whether circum- it might stances do depend upon so would whether they considered were sufficient to disclose such an intent.43 It authority follows that to concur in an of set- imply tlement does without more authority repre- employee proceedings, sent Board or the latter the former. is true when the authority This given *30 agent as it given is when is to another. That controlling. is circumstance not It only bears one fac- words, In aggrieved employee the right other has delegate the to agreement to concur in an settlement, his but the at same rights time to his reserve to make submission to the Board and of appearance representation it, conversely before or to reserve his right delegate rights to concur and representa of submission and delegate tion. To may what extent depends he one or all therefore upon particular delegation intent which he makes the disclosed in made, which gives circumstances it is evidence such conduct, intent his and this question will be a of fact clearly unless the circumstances so show he intended make to delegation possible. claimed that no other conclusion is in Accordingly in total situation. case the tor respondents fact that authorized the union to mere in represent submission and to them Docket No. make the to agree- not make the settlement imply authority 3537 did in to them later represent quite ment or different in No. proceedings Docket conclusively not show

The record does that prior Docket No. 3537 the finally submission had committed the whole matter of their into the claims hands in manner union’s such a as to constitute a sur- rights their any agree- render of individual to concur in justified ment of settlement. That conclusion not merely from fact that union participated negotiations with the carrier.

Moreover, authorization, act Docket No. 3537, obviously given was after efforts secure settlement by negotiation were considered to have failed. Only anyone then was entitled to make the submission. Accordingly that entirely authorization was consistent negotiations with the idea no further that be had, would therefore, more, without also with the that idea no authority negotiate further implied. may It hearing concerning a full scope course and negotiations prior submission, to this the evidence justify will conclusion that the respondents had author- finally union to ized the act them. But the record in does not present justify state that conclusion as a matter of law.44 respondents’ position concerning consequences It is trae that

of their authorization make the submission in Docket No. 3537 is altogether claiming consistent. For in authorized sub only applicability mission to determine the future, of Article 6 for the question retroactivity not to determine the so as to establish adversely monetary conclude basis for their claims, individual they appear ignore, petitioner as does contentions, some of its the distinction bargaining between collective and the settlement of grievances as the Act defines them. Cf. 39 and If their note text. *31 if be true that Docket had been may

It also No. 3537 carried to decision the award would have been effective rights no parties. to determine the of the But award in that It proceeding. was made was terminated and claim withdrawn. Whether or not that action or was other later occurring events were effective terminate authority given for the submit Board’s determina- tion the issue which the foundation respondents’ was monetary claims or whether that authority continued in changed spite questions conditions are also to be determined from factual evaluation of the entire situa- tion, essentially preliminary to legal determination of effects, which we cannot make.

Since the total say situation we cannot as a matter respondents of law that had authorized the Brotherhood to act for them in Docket No. whether in submitting in representing the cause or them Board; before the since it they is conceded were not given also notice of the proceedings otherwise than as the union had knowledge of further they since have denied them; they had knowledge proceedings and of the award until after it entered, question whether the award was effec- in any manner to their rights tive affect must be deter- mined the further proceedings which are required. The respect, crucial issue of course, will be initially respondents whether had authorized the Brotherhood in manner any legally sufficient represent them, individ- ually, in the proceedings Board’s in Docket No. 7324. merely future, purpose was to authorize settlement for the without Adjustment effects, the submission retroactive to the Board was misconceived, requiring since it has no render a decision agreement. only authority, the carrier or the union to make a new Its Act, agreed upon determine have previously under the is to what or, scope agreement, rights outside the of a collective what the carrier may acquired by and its have virtue of other incidents very employment relation. an issue nature looks Such though may compliance past, also seek for the future. *32 determined, necessary it is not question Until that is important concerning issue pass us to award, finality conclusive effect of the or to determine and validity legal agreement. and effect of the compromise accordingly express opinion concerning no We those issues. judgment is affirmed. cause is remanded for

further proceedings conformity opinion., with this Frankfurter,

Mr. Justice dissenting. July 1934, the 27, On Brotherhood of Railroad Train- petitioner, Elgin, men made an with Joliet and Railway Company, affecting yardmen whereby Eastern re- starting switching time for crews was fixed. The employed switching Whiting, are crews spondents yard petitioner. They are all members of the Indiana yard of this by petitioner Brotherhood. Observance into After abortive con- question. called agreement was adjustment of these claims between ferences for Brotherhood, C. H. Wil- petitioner and officials the Brotherhood General liams, Chairman of General covering Committee, complaint filed a several Grievance Adjustment Board, National Railroad with the 1934, 1185, Labor 48 Stat. Railway Act created seq., et compel compliance petitioner’s C. § 45 U. S. November, 1936, In the cases agreed time. were heard, petitioner, duly Before came to docketed. proposed settlement numerous October on pending the Brotherhood then before against byit claims Among these claims was the dis- Board. Adjustment agreed ninety- for a Petitioner starting toas time. pute 15,’1938, to abide beginning November period, day trial But its offer agreement. time fixed by the withdrawal complete “on a settlement conditioned board, or under either before pending cases now of all under- further . . with this office . discussion accepted that in the stood event these settlements listed in letter all similar the claims cover claims nature, other or like covering no claims the same will be when presented situations such claims arise occurring to the date of this prior causes settlement.” On 31, 1938, accepted October settlement on these terms was by Williams, yardmen Chairman, General *33 Johnson, Secretary S. F. the Brotherhood’s General day On the same and upon Committee. Grievance Railway, the request of the Brotherhood and cases were by Adjustment the from its docket Board. removed Adjustment Brotherhood filed with the Later the Board claiming complaint money damages on a second behalf agreement. of the 1934 of its members violation award, the Board, by ground formal denied claim on the “evidence that the parties agree- shows to the disposed by ment of the claim here made the letter of 28th, 1938, accepted by carrier dated employes October 31,1938.” October

Respondents then filed suit in this the District Court damages. Petitioner invoked the 1938 settlement and bar, Board’s award thereon as moved for sum- mary judgment. Respondents resisted this motion by denying authority of the Brotherhood officials to pre- sent their agree claims Board or to to the settlement. gave The District Court summary judgment for the peti- tioner which was reversed the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on ground the questión authority of the Brotherhood officials raised an issue of fact for trial the District Court. F. 2d 488. The correctness of ruling important is the question now before us. 323 U. S. 690.

We have had recent occasion to consider the Railway Labor Act other aspects. Board, Switchmen’s Union v. 297; U. S. General Committee Co., v. M.-K.-T. R. S. 323; U. General Committee Co., v. Southern Pacific problems which the complexities U. S. specific question make clear that bare, those cases laid isolated from the scheme be us cannot immediately before entirety. Act an Labor Railway and structure from the apart appreciated in turn cannot The Act which purposes it came and the which out of environment designed serve. it was industrial relations our rail- view of point

From the history The nature and thing apart. largely a roads are roads, unionization of the experience industry, in- authority on both sides of the concentration negotiating agreements, intimacy dustry parties of the two relationship between leaders national, regional, or at long course of least shaped aspects agree- technical negotiations, the intricate these knowledge for which their inter- specialized ments and application call, practical interdepend- pretation and agreements seemingly separate collective ence of —these against admonish considerations mutilating similar *34 complicated comprehensive system governing industrial episodic railroad relations utilization of judicial remedies. inapposite Railway Labor Act primarily of 1934 is an instru- government. such,

ment of As view that is held of designed world for which the Act particular will judicial guide direction of largely interpretation of for Railway The railroad world which the Labor the Act. designed thus summarized one of Act was has been discerning students of railroad labor most relations: like a within “The railroad world is state a state. Its if we include million, of three the families some population has own customs and its own workers, vocabulary, its making. its own . according to rules of . . This and lives degree enjoyed high of internal state within a state has divergent interests despite for peace generations; two firmly reign of law has been component parts, Garrison, Adjustment established.” The Railroad Board: Unique A Agency Administrative (1937) 46 Yale L. J. 567, 568-69.

The Railway Labor Act an of 1934 is expression “reign of provides law” and the means for maintaining Nearly experimental it. half century legislation lies say behind It is stage Act. fair to every evolution of this railroad labor code was progressively infused purpose securing self-adjustment be- effectively organized tween the railroads and the equally and, end, effective railroad unions to that of establishing self-adjustment facilities such the railroad com- munity of its own industrial controversies. These were certainly by ill-adapted judicial to be solved expected escape from interferences, which was one indeed driving specialized in establishing motives machinery of mediation and arbitration. Government intervention of any contemplated only kind was as a last resort for the of calamitous avoidance strikes. history, tersely

The landmarks summarized, are meager 1888, October 1, 501, act of providing Stat. voluntary arbitration; the Erdman Act of June 1, 1898, 424, securing government Stat. mediation and arbitration, applicable only but actually engaged those operations; in train service the Newlands Act of July 15, 103, 1913, providing permanent 38 Stat. for a board of and also a board of arbitration; mediation the Adamson 3, 1916, 39 September Stat. as to which Act see New, 243 U. S. Order 332; v. No. 8 of February Wilson 1918, formulating policy the labor the Government took the railroads, the United States over after see Hines, *35 of American Railroads History (1928), p. War 155 et seq.; more elaborate machinery by established Title III Transportation 1920, Act of 456, 469, for Stat. adjustments of these controversies, which in its turn was Railway and repealed replaced Act May Labor 20,1926, legislation agreed between Stat. probably unique and

railroads and Brotherhoods frankly the President having accepted been as such legislation of this Congress.1 operation The actual and led, hopes sponsors, of its and partly disappointed by the self-government greater promotion the still Act of 1934. industry, railroad that Act is a well as the aim of assumption between negotiation and conference

process permanent through employees hand and the on the one the carriers First, “It provides Section their unions on the other. employees carriers.. . . and duty shall be the of all agree- effort to make and maintain exert reasonable every rules, working condi- concerning pay, ments rates disputes, arising whether out tions, and to settle all . agreements or . .” Sec- application of such otherwise “All Second, provides disputes between a carrier tion 2, if considered, and, . . . shall be . . . and its be- decided, expedition, with all conference possible, designated and authorized so to representatives tween . respectively, by the carrier . . the em- confer, in the dispute.” According thereof interested ployees “In Sixth, arising griev- case of a . . . out of 2,§ or interpretation application agree- out of ances or concerning rates of pay, rules, working conditions, ments designated duty representative be the it shall of such carrier . . . representatives and of em- such days ten after the receipt within of notice of a ployees, part party on the of either to confer in respect desire specify place a time and at dispute, such which such message 8, 1925, Congress, of December 1 In his President managers Coolidge stated: “I am informed railroad employees have reached a substantial as to what their regulate improve relationship. legislation necessary to their bring proposals, forward such which seem sufficient Whenever public, they enacted protect interests of the also to .should Cong. law.” into Rec. *36 held . . .” Section (i)

conference shall be First directs disputes growing grievances out of or the interpreta- application agreements concerning tion or of pay, rates handled rules, working conditions be conference and negotiation, including necessary resort if the chief op- to erating officer' of the carrier. Compliance these statutory prerequisite appeal a to duties is to National Adjustment Board. The purpose legisla- Railroad this pressure maximum tion the exertion of toward amicable between the Resort parties. Adjust- settlement process. ment Board is the last in the step statutory In controversy adjustment before us an amicable parties goal legislation between been —the —had pursuing the course which achieved the Act of 1934 directed. are now asked to nullify We settlement, negotiations, to prolonged open arrived at after litigation only to new discords. Not door of is it sought revive the and to restore it to the to status it had Adjustment Board more than eight years before the ago. claim that all respondents years after these have bargaining their repudiate agents to right and to try the agents though these authority this were a conven- involving responsibility lawsuit tional of a principal agent. his for the conduct of their Brotherhood,

As members respondents were of whereby familiar with the procedure course union for them both to the Railroad and speaks before the Adjustment Board. Brotherhood’s “Constitution Rules,” which respondents General made part of clear about this. below, case Rule No. 7 their declares grievance after has to a that, been transmitted General Committee, that Committee Grievance “shall have alter, amend, any add or strike out . part . . or all any complaint claim submitted committee, appeal the entire General Committee subject and/or general grievance A Appeals. may Board Committee their chairman to handle all received authorize lodges management with the local settle- deny . .” Respondents ment . cannot the Broth- *37 authority compliance by officials had to seek erhood agreement starting through with time railroad Adjustment In sweeping Board. view of the to grievances, Grievance Committee settle the General that made on behalf of the Brotherhood settlement on the because is invulnerable. attack settlement signed by only two of the three members of the it was all procedure Such is not at Committee frivolous. settled other Williams and Johnson unusual. money. for manner, many involving of them claims

in like action in that own rules sanction such The Brotherhood's to may authorize Chairman handle the Committee grievances. all agent’s an author simple is not a little case about

This employees’ imply ity. representative Demands of speaks for he but only authority those whom not speaks. whom duty from those to he respect legal duty to treat with is under a union’s carrier Railway of the Labor purposes Act. for representative R. Virginian System Co. Federa v. 2, Ninth; see Section ordinary do not case tion, 300 U. S. 515. We have agent an dealing with ostensible must person third a where In agent’s authority. ascertain such a peril at his protect by refusing himself may person a situation If duty petitioner deal. has petitioner Here deal. of the union employees’ the officials to deal with refuses it does so under authority, pain challenging their on the reasonable with them belief If deals penalty. acting of the Brotherhood are officials grievance that the union procedure, settle customary accordance at the of being hazard ought not to made ments thus To such settle allow litigation. jettisoned by future is to smooth aside set to be thus obstruct ments working of the Act. It undermines confidence so indispensable adjustment by negotiation, which is the object vital of the Act. See Division Order Rail- Gorman, way Conductors v. F. 2d respondents irrespective But claim that of the authority of the Brotherhood officials handle claims for the en- forcement agreed starting time, did Williams authority present Adjustment have Board the damages claim for respondents petitioner’s due to al- leged past violation starting-time agreement. They insist there is no relation between claim for money resulting from the violation a collective agreement. a claim the enforcement a collective surely But this is to sever which is It organic. wholly disregards the nature of such a collective agreement, *38 implications and its ramifications. In passing on the- money damages arising yard claim for out the agree- of examine, tribunal ment, any interpret would have to and agreement it would if apply precisely the collective agreement in the duty issue were to observe future. application agree- An based on the of the collective award from would, questions technical quite apart ment of res governed judicata, by affect future claims same col- agreement particular whatever the forms lective which merely To find here an may isolated, be cast. the claims is to question past liability disregard of law to narrow money controversy which bind the to its ties railroad Such is blind to the fact that a view “all environment. aggrieved of the or craft to which an em- members class legitimate interest belongs have a real ployee at time, may Each of some later be in- dispute. them, Atty. dispute.” Ops. Gen., in -a No. volved similar view 29, 1942) Indeed, 4—5. such a out (Dec. pp. leaves only significant bearing of the of not consideration on parts collective of construction same immediately the Court. It the carrier’s lines not before the relation of in a provision agree- overlooks collective ment comparable provisions with one of railroad agreements with other roads.

To allow the award issue authorization after an relitigated in the the Board courts inimical to government internal the Brotherhood. Union mem- complicated Policy counsels bership generates relations. If intrusion against judicial upon these relations. resort available, certainly is at should disre- courts all arrangements gard displace the which the members voluntarily recip- for their organization establish to be by which bound themselves rocal interests and membership gov- rights and duties of governed. The Brotherhood. Rule 10 concerns erned rules of the may be objections to action: “Whatever action official . . . shall be general grievance committee taken meeting until the next on that road lodges law to any if refuses to vote member appeals, the board of grievance general committee by the action such or abide adjustment expelled he shall be or board of ask obligation.” To Brotherhood for violation courts meaning the Brotherhood rules and adjudicate proceed- to remedial preliminary without resort customs encourage is to the Brotherhood influences ings within of fostering instead within the union these disruption organiza- Rules of fraternal stabilizing forces. unions as give assumptions them tions, all the customs *39 ordinary were though they legal life, be treated as cannot “Freedom meaning. litigation, of of documents settled democratic instance, hardly part is so essential a strike be asked to down the courts should process wise, to courts are as pursuit. hindrances to its all this, general require- example adhering take an the union be remedies within ment that all available they sought before them redress is before exhausted grafted upon have exceptions many unwise 758 Witmer,

this rule.” Civil Liberties Trade Union L. (1941) 621, increasing extent, 50 Yale J. 630. To an require courts within a dissidents union to seek interpre- organization’s tation rules and to seek redress arising out them appropriate before union Compare Harris, & tribunals. Western R. v.Co. Norfolk Ky. Perrotti, 132, 69; Agrippino S. W. 2d v. Snay Lovely, 169 N. E. v. 793; Mass. Mass. Co., 176 N. I. Chicago, E. Webb R. & G. 791; v. R. S. 2d 245. W. Act, product long Labor Railway expe-

rience, complicated carefully is a but devised scheme for adjusting powerful relations between the two groups constituting industry. the railroad It misconceives the legislation provisions and mutilates its to read into it com- mon law notions for the -private rights. settlement of If, meaning when a arises over the of a collective agreement, legally designated railroad bargaining unit negotiate cannot with the carrier without first obtaining specific every authorization of individual member of may be financially the union who involved in dispute, only it not weakens the union encouraging divisive It gravely handicaps elements. the union in its power bargain That responsibly. not all. Not to allow duly officers elected of an accredited union to speak membership for its accordance with the terms of the government internal the union to permit any mem- union to pursue ber his own interest under a col- very lective undermines the conception of a agreement. It reintroduces the in- destructive dividualism the relations between the railroads and their workers which it was the very purpose of the Railway every Labor Act to eliminate. To allow individual worker individual claims on private base his notions scope meaning of a collective agreement, intended down lay uniform standards for all those covered *40 make juries and courts permit is to agreement, to an varying constructions give findings varying reflect- phrases in inevitably words couched understanding of the railroad usage habits, ing the dislocating dif- those industry. Thus will be introduced have in the craft same which ferentiations workers to fric- among provocations the most fertile always been in the railroad world. The Rail- tion, strife, strike be so Act, supposed, Labor one had would construed way not multiply these seeds of strife. to reduce and as In to avoid mischievous for the opportunities order against individual claims as shippers assertion uniformity construing in railroad interest common Court so construed the tariffs, this Interstate Commerce case, famous Abilene Cotton Oil 204 U. S. Act shipper to withdraw the historic common law for charging sue the courts unreasonable rates. right to resort to the Interstate Commerce Commission required It to do so would result in the impairment not because of that Act. It did so purpose because even general theoretically this Court could though ultimately review adjudications judicial imbedded the various such go could shipper to a court judgments first —if would considerations of which fact instance —there disentangle so possibly as to secure Court could uniformity. The necessary beneficent rule in the by reading Oil case was evolved Inter- Abilene Cotton Act it though not as were Commerce a collection state words, by treating but as an instrument of abstract long growing experience out of with certain government to their correction. Chief and addressed evils Justice in that case opinion was characterized White’s his Taft, “conspicuous Chief Justice successor, instance and remarkable and facility his unusual in states- law.” interpretation manlike of statute U. S. xxv. Railway Act provisions Labor do not even *41 adjudication necessitate a act of such creative as this Court in the unanimously Abilene case accomplished. The Railway Labor Act contains embarrassing no specific was true of 22 of provision, § as the Interstate Commerce Act, 379, 387, calling Stat. for subordination to the legislation. main purpose The considerations making adjustment for harmonious of railroad industrial through designed machinery Congress relations by allowing Labor Act Railway disregarded are machinery by-passed introducing be dislocating through individual resort differentiations courts agreement. a collective application Adjustment claim Board Since before was for money, question remains the whether its disposition there judicial Railway review. The Labor open Act com- “awards be final mands that Board's shall and bind- ing upon parties dispute, except both insofar as money 3,§ (m). shall contain a award.” First But controversy here in the determination does not “contain money as to excepted, award” so the final and binding given other awards. The effect obvious meaning an “money directing is award the payment award” payment. See money, denying Berryman not one Pull- v. F. Co., Supp. pointed 542. We man to no aids to construction should withhold us from giving the fa- “money any term award” miliar other ordinary than its meaning something money. that awards con- This by comparison struction confirmed with the provisions of the Interstate dealing Commerce Act with reparation orders. both Since Acts came out of the Congres- same finds, naturally sional Committees one enough, that provisions for enforcement and review of the Adjustment awards Board’s were based on those reparation orders by the Interstate Commerce Commission. .Compare Railway Act, 3,§ Labor First with (p) Interstate Com- Act, merce amended by Act, Hepburn § 584; (1), If fails (2). § Stat. C. 16 a carrier 49 U. S. comply reparation order, as is true of non-com Adjustment award, complainant pliance with an Board may sue court for Commission’s order enforcement;, findings prima and evidence then become evi facie denial claim money dence of the facts stated. But a of a bars the door to by the Commission Interstate Commerce Brady, & v. redress the courts. Baltimore Ohio R. Co. States, 385, 388; I. C. C. United 289 U. S. 448; 288 U. S. v. Co., Pennsylvania Terminal R. v. 297 U. S. Warehouse *42 500, 507. Labor Act review of the Board’s Railway precludes authorization of the offi- and, since Brotherhood

award; judicial open make the settlement is not now cials to for reversal. inquiry, judgment calls Justice, Me. Me. The Chief Justice RobeRts join this dissent. Jackson Justice ARIZONA ex PACIFIC CO. v.

SOUTHERN rel.

SULLIVAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL. Argued 26, 27, March 1945. Decided June 1945.

No. note notes and text also Cf. infra. duty partial. plain In terms the is laid carrier not on and representatives; equally alike, together plain in with their and terms by Act, major applies disputes it to all covered whether or minor. 19 9861, Cong., 3; Rep. Sess., Rep. on R. 73d 2d H. No. 1944 H. S. Sess., 3266, Cong., 1, on 73d 2d 1065 S. 2. No. 726 griev- the intended defeat settlement right, creating the local boards of declining join by ances They Act. exercised this adjustment by that provided prac- became the common limit. Deadlock The result was a com- impossible. making decision tice, machinery. working of the practical breakdown plete stagnated until the mass as- and accumulated Grievances major dispute. Several or- of a proportions sumed threatened strike ballots and thus ganizations took traffic, among which others induced interrupt factor principal to become the Transportation Coordinator sponsor amendments. author advocate Congress act them before in the House insisted adjournment for fear that if no action were taken a rail- might The old Mediation Board place.20 crisis take road log jam, To at same helpless.21 break this the way out of of the get grievances settling time through functioning major disputes Mediation created Adjustment given power Board was Board, them.22 to decide ' referred, Cong. Eastman Rec. 12553. Coordinator in his Cf. testimony, to four recent strike votes occasioned deadlock. Hear 3266, ings Cong., Interstate Commerce on S. 73d Committee on before Sess., 17. 2d provision Senate Committee: “The The Chairman told the adjustment practice is in present act boards about

[1926] possibly anything could be. I mean provision a fool this— as near they shall, by agreement, Well, do so and so. on the face of nearly anything agreement, you you pretty but how can can do Hearings agree get ?” before Committee on Interstate Com them Sess., Cong., 2d 73d merce on S. general inducing See, for a view of the circumstances enactment Amendments, 4, 15, the references above in notes cited report charge 19. The of the House Committee the bill stated: disputes “Many of these have been considered boards thousands Act; Railway established Labor but boards have been under decision, proceedings so majority to reach have been unable