Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen et al. v. Howard et al. (343 U.S. 768)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 9, 1952 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 343 U.S. 768 · 72 S. Ct. 1022
- Docket
- No. 458
- Argued
- April 22, 1952
- Decided
- June 9, 1952
- Term
- October Term 1951
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Black
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Justice Clark, Justice Burton, Justice R. H. Jackson, Justice Douglas, Justice Frankfurter, Justice Black (wrote)
- Dissenting
- Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Minton (wrote), Justice Reed
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court. This case raises questions concerning the power of courts to protect Negro railroad employees from loss of their jobs under compulsion of a bargaining agreement which, to avoid a strike, the railroad made with an exclusively white man’s union. Respondent Simon Howard, a Frisco train employee for nearly forty years, brought this action on behalf of himself and other colored employees similarly situated. In summary the complaint alleged: Negro employees such as respondent constituted a group called “train porters” although they actually performed all the duties of white “brakemen”; the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, bargaining representative of “brakemen” under the Railway Labor Act, had for years used its influence in an attempt to eliminate Negro trainmen and get their jobs for white men who, unlike colored “train porters,” were or could be members of the Brotherhood; on March 7, 1946, the Brotherhood finally forced the Frisco to agree to discharge the colored “train porters” and fill their jobs with white men who, under the agreement, would do less work but get more pay. The complaint charged that the Brotherhood’s “discriminatory action” violated the train porters’ rights under the Railway Labor Act and under the Constitution; that the agreement was void because against public policy, prejudicial to the public…
Excerpt of a 16,939-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.