Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

26696 (1973)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Number: 26696 Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 05, 1973
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 474 F.2d 696 82 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2622 , 70 Lab.Cas. P 13,385 SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS et al., Appellants. SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS et al., Appellants. Nos. 26696, 71-1390. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Jan. 23, 1973. Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1973. Certiorari Dismissed April 5, 1973. See 93 S. Ct. 1561 . Harold A. Ross (argued),
More

474 F.2d 696

82 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2622, 70 Lab.Cas. P 13,385

SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Appellee,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS et al., Appellants.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Appellee,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS et al., Appellants.

Nos. 26696, 71-1390.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 23, 1973.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1973.
Certiorari Dismissed April 5, 1973.
See 93 S. Ct. 1561.

Harold A. Ross (argued), of Ross, Kraushaar & Bennett, Cleveland, Ohio, Victor A. Bertolani, of Bertolani & Smolich, Sacramento, Cal., for appellants.

William R. Denton (argued), W. A. Gregory, John J. Corrigan, San Francisco, Cal., John V. Diepenbrock, Forrest A. Plant, of Diepenbrock, Wulff, Plant & Hannegan, Sacramento, Cal., for appellee.

Before ELY, CHOY, and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers appeals from a preliminary injunction against a work stoppage in a dispute with Southern Pacific Transportation Company concerning work assignments.

2

The identical legal questions now before this court were recently presented and decided in International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Washington Terminal Company, 473 F.2d 1156 (D.C. Cir., 1972).

3

A comprehensive opinion authored by Judge MacKinnon traces the legislative and judicial history of the controlling legislation, and resolves, for the purposes of this dispute, the legal questions presented here. We agree with the conclusion of the District of Columbia Circuit that the work-assignment dispute involved in these cases is a "minor dispute" within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Sec. 153 (1970), and, accordingly, that its proper resolution is for the National Railroad Adjustment Board.

4

Affirmed.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer