Lexplug logoLexplug

Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen

Supreme Court of the United States
1944 U.S. LEXIS 1198, 65 S. Ct. 235, 323 U.S. 210 (1945)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A union's duty of fair representation, implied by the Railway Labor Act, creates a federal right for employees. A suit alleging a breach of this duty is one "arising under" a law regulating commerce, granting federal courts jurisdiction even in the absence of diversity of citizenship.


Facts:

  • Tom Tunstall, a Negro fireman, was employed by the Norfolk & Southern Railway.
  • The Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen was the exclusive bargaining representative for the craft of firemen, which included Tunstall.
  • The Brotherhood and the Railway entered into a collective bargaining agreement on February 18, 1941.
  • This agreement discriminated against Negro firemen by favoring 'promotable' (white) firemen for preferred positions.
  • As a result of the agreement, Tunstall was deprived of his seniority rights and removed from his desirable interstate passenger run.
  • Tunstall was reassigned to more arduous yard service work, and his previous position was filled by a white fireman.
  • The contract was executed without notice to Tunstall or other Negro firemen and without giving them an opportunity to be heard.
  • Tunstall's protests to both the Railway and the Brotherhood for relief were unavailing.

Procedural Posture:

  • Tom Tunstall filed suit against the Norfolk & Southern Railway and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen in the U.S. District Court.
  • The District Court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
  • Tunstall appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
  • The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal, holding the suit was not one arising under the laws of the United States.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a suit alleging a union's breach of its duty of fair representation, implied by the Railway Labor Act, arise under a law regulating commerce, thereby granting federal courts jurisdiction even without diversity of citizenship?


Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Stone

Yes. A suit alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation arises under federal law, granting federal courts jurisdiction. The right asserted by the petitioner—to be represented by his union without racial discrimination—is a federal right implied from the Railway Labor Act and the policy it adopted. Because the union's duty derives from a federal statute, the union's discriminatory conduct is condemned as unlawful by that federal statute. A case challenging such conduct is therefore one 'arising under a law regulating commerce,' for which federal courts are given jurisdiction by statute (28 U.S.C. § 41(8)). Furthermore, because no administrative remedies are available to the petitioner to address this grievance, he is not required to exhaust such remedies before seeking equitable relief in federal court.


Concurring - Mr. Justice Murphy

Mr. Justice Murphy concurred in the result for the reasons expressed in his concurring opinion in the companion case, Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co.



Analysis:

This decision, along with its companion case Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., is foundational in establishing the doctrine of a union's 'duty of fair representation.' By confirming that this duty is a federally enforceable right, the Court opened federal courts to claims of union discrimination, even without diversity jurisdiction. This provided a crucial avenue for relief for minority workers who were often marginalized by the very unions designated to protect them. The ruling solidified the principle that rights and duties can be implied from federal regulatory statutes and that federal question jurisdiction extends to their enforcement.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen (1945)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"