RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Railway labor unions challenged Interstate Commerce Commission orders approving Southern Railway's acquisition of Central of Georgia Railway, contending that the ICC failed to adequately protect employees under the Washington Job Protection Agreement's provisions. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded the case to the ICC with instructions to clarify and amend its orders to specifically address whether sections 4, 5, and 9 of the Washington Agreement should be included as protective conditions in the merger approval.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
This appeal is from a judgment of a three-judge District Court, 226 F. Supp. 521, dismissing appellants’ complaint to set aside orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 317 I.
C. C. 557, 729, relating to the Southern Railway Company’s acquisition of control through stock, ownership of the Central of Georgia Railway Company. Appellants, representing railway employees, object that under the Commission’s orders, the employees are not protected as provided by §§ 4, 5, and 0 of the Washington Job Protection-Agreement.
We agree with the suggestion of the Solicitor General that this case should be remanded to the Interstate Commerce Commission for clarification of its orders insofar as they relate to the agreement. For this reason, the motion of the Interstate Commerce Commission to affirm the judgment of the District Court is denied. The motion of intervenor-appellees Southern Railway Company and Central of Georgia Railway Company to defer consideration of the jurisdictional statement is denied. Appellants’ motion to limit the appeal to questions related to §§ 4, 5, and 9 of' the Washington Job Piocection Agreement is granted. The judgment oí the District Court is vacated insofar as it relates to §§ 4, 5, and 9 of the Washington Agreement, and this case is remanded to that court with instructions to remand it to the Interstate Commerce Commission with instructions to amend its reports and orders as necessary to deal with appellants’ request that § § 4, 5, and 9 be included as protective conditions, specifically indicating why each of these provisions is either omitted or included. See United States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & Pac.
R. Co., 294 U. S. 499, 511.
Vacated and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
NEW York Dock Ry. & Brooklyn E. Dist. Terminal v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 609 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1979)…e mandatory arbitration provisions which were contained in §§ 4 and 5 of the WJPA. Hence, because of the uncertainty surrounding this matter, the case reached the Supreme Court on review. The Court, Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n v. United States, 379 U.S. 199, 85 S.Ct. 307, 13 L.Ed.2d 338 (1964), chose to remand the case to the ICC for clarification of the conditions it had intended to impose in its Southern Control I decision. On remand, the ICC declared its intent to include in the “New Orleans conditi…
-
Lamoille Valley R.R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States, 711 F.2d 295 (D.C. Cir. 1983)…and appeal dismissed in relevant part as moot, 386 U.S. 544, 87 S.Ct. 1299, 18 L.Ed.2d 285 (1967); Railway Labor Executives’ Association v. United States (RLEA 2d), 226 F.Supp. 521, 524-25 (E.D. Va.) (3-judge court), vacated and remanded per curiam, 379 U.S. 199, 85 S.Ct. 307, 13 L.Ed.2d 338 (1964).62 VI. Procedural Issues A. Must Mr. Mellon Join the Merger Application? Guilford sought ICC permission to acquire the Boston & Maine under 49 U.S.C. § 11,343(a)(5), which requires ICC approval for: acquisiti…
-
The Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. & the Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. The United States & The Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 571 F.2d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 1977)…ted the court’s judgment insofar as it related to sections 4, 5, and 9 of the Washington Agreement, which were designed for employee protection.8 The per curiam opinion of the Supreme court in Railway Labor Executives’ Association v. United States, 379 U.S. 199, 85 S.Ct. 307, 13 L.Ed.2d 338 (1964), which involved Southern Control I, decreed: The judgment of the District Court is vacated insofar as it relates to §§ 4, 5, and 9 of the Washington [Job Protection] Agreement, and this case is remanded to that…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Chicago, 294 U.S. 499 (U.S. 1935)