Full opinion text
BARNES, District Judge. 1. Plaintiff Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company [hereinafter called “MKT”] is a corporation of the State of Missouri, with its principal office and place of business in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. It owns and operates lines of railroad in interstate commerce and in intrastate commerce in the States of Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma. 2. Plaintiff Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company of Texas [hereinafter-called “MKT”] is a corporation of the State of Texas, with its principal office and place of business in the City of Dallas, Dallas County, Texas. It owns and operates lines of railroad in interstate commerce and in intrastate commerce in the State of Texas. 3. Defendant National Railroad Adjustment Board [hereinafter called “Board”] is an agency of the United States of America, created by Section 3, First of. the Railway Labor Act of 1934, 45 U.S.C.A. § 153, First, with its headquarters in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. 4. Defendant Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board [hereinafter called “Board”] is an agency of the United States of America, created by Section 3, First (h) of the Railway Labor Act of 1934, 45 U.S.C.A. § 153, First" (h), with its headquarters in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. 5. Defendants C. P. Dugan, J. E. Kemp, R. M. Butler, W. H. Castle, E. T. Horsley, J. H. Sylvester, Gerald Orndorff, Roger Sarchet, C. R. Barnes, and J. W. Whitehouse, are members of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, and members of the Third Division- of that Board; they maintain their offices in the City of Chicago, Cook County; Illinois, and reside in one or more of the counties within the Northern -District of Illinois. Defendants R. M. Butler, W. H. Castle, E. T. Horsley, C. R. Barnes, and J. W. Whitehouse, were substituted for original defendants R. H. Allison, C. C. Cook, A. H. Jones, A. J. Cunningham and A. R. Ferris, whose tenure of office terminated during these proceedings.. 6. Defendant Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes [hereinafter called “BRC”] is an unincorporated association of clerks and other employees of MKT, and of other railroad companies, and of other employers, throughout the United States. 7. BRC has its principal office and place of business in the City of Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio, but it has an office and does business in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. 8. BRC has submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Court in this case. 9. BRC is the collective bargaining agent under the Railway Labor Act for the craft or class of employees commonly called “Clerks” on the lines of railroad operated by MKT and on the lines of other railroad companies throughout the United States. In those capacities, BRC makes collective bargaining agreements with MKT and other railroad companies. All members of that craft or class, are subject to such agreements. 10. BRC has a special Bureau which selects claims against railroads and progresses them to the Board in order to procure awards which will establish principles and precedents for use by BRC on those railroads and on other railroads in obtaining compliance with similar agreement provisions. 11. Awards 3932, 3933, and 3934, rendered by the Board in Dockets CL-3714, CL-3715, and CL-3716, established the principle that employees represénted by BRC have the right to perform station clerical work. BRC will use those awards as precedents. 12. The members of BRC constitute a class; there are more than 200,000 members of that class and they are too numerous to bring them all before the Court; and the members of that class have a common interest in the- facts and law of this case. 13. Defendant G. B. Goble is one of the members of BRC constituting a class. He is also one of seven Vice Grand Presidents of BRC and is. 3, member of its Grand Executive Council which has jurisdiction over the affairs ,of -BRC. 14. Goble maintains an office in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, and he resides in McHenry. County, Illinois, 15. Goble is sued individually, as an officer and managing agent of .BRC, as a representative of the Grand Lodge, Subordinate Units, System Boards of Adjustment, District Boards of Adjustment, Terminal Boards of Adjustment, and Lodges, of BRC, and as a representative of the members of BRC constituting a class. 16. Over a period of fourteen years prior to his becoming Vice Grand President, Goble represented BRC on the Chicago and North Western Railroad System Board of Adjustment, first as a member, then as Vice General Chairman, then as General Secretary-Treasurer, and then as General Chairman. 17. In 1935, Goble was assigned by the Grand President of BRC to duties of Grand Lodge Representative in the Chicago District. In 1936, the Grand Executive Council of BRC elected him to the position of Vice Grand President. He was elected Vice Grand President of BRC at the Toronto Convention in 1939; at the St. Louis Convention in 1943; at the Cincinnati Convention in 1947; and at the San Francisco Convention in 1951. The delegates to those conventions elected Goble; and they had been elected by members of BRC Lodges throughout the United States, including the BRC Lodges on MKT. 18. Goble is required by BRC’s Constitution to perform such duties as the Grand President of BRC assigns to him, to do all in his power to promote the organization of BRC and advance its welfare, and to consult with and assist BRC’s System Boards of Adjustment in securing adjustments of wage and schedule disputes. 19. As required by BRC’s Constitution, Goble made full and complete printed reports of his official acts and work to each session of the Grand Lodge Convention of BRC. Those reports and his testimony in this case show: (a) Since 1936, Goble, as Vice Grand President of BRC, has represented that Organization, on assignments from its Grand President, in controversies on 55 railroads, including: Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Chicago and Eastern Illinois Chicago and North Western Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Chicago Great Western Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Chicago Union Station Erie Grand Trunk Great Northern Illinois Central Michigan Central Minneapolis & St. Louis Minneapolis, St. Paul, & Sault Ste. Marie New York Central Pennsylvania Pere Marquette St. Louis-San Francisco Wabash. (b) Goble performed those duties in Washington, D. C. and at other places such as: State City Illinois: Chicago; Springfield Iowa: Oelwein Michigan: D etroit; Escanaba Minnesota Duluth; St. Paul Missouri: St. Louis Ohio: Cincinnati Wisconsin: Milwaukee (c) Goble’s activities, as a member and as Vice Grand President of BRC, covered a variety of subjects affecting BRC, its members, and the class or craft represented by it, including: (1) Representing BRC in elections to determine the collective bargaining agent for employees, and procuring recognition for BRC in other representation disputes, without the necessity of elections. (2) Negotiating, revising, interpreting and applying collective bargaining agreements covering wages, rules, and working conditions. (3) Participating in proceedings of the National Mediation Board relating to controversies between BRC and railroad companies over rules and wages. (4) Handling claims and grievances arising out of collective bargaining agreements. (5) Participating in arbitration cases under the Railway Labor Act, and sometimes acting as BRC’s arbitrator in disputes with railroad companies over the making or revision of collective bargaining agreements. (6) Protecting employees displaced by railroad consolidations or affected by the coordination of facilities or the pooling of traffic. (7) Representing BRC on a committee created for the purpose of providing greater labor representation on a railroad system hospital board, and dealing with problems of hospital administration. (8) Advising and consulting with officers and members of BRC on all kinds of organization work. (9) Assisting in the formation of a State Representative Committee for BRC. (10) Representing BRC, during absences of its Grand President, in conferences and negotiations between the Labor Committee and the Railroad Management Committee, which resulted in the 1941 National Wage Increase for Non-Operating Railroad Employees. (11) Representing BRC in national wage conferences and mediation proceedings which resulted in the 1945 national wage increases. (12) Representing BRC in the wage dispute between the Cooperating Railway Labor Organizations and the Short Line Railroads, which was disposed of in accordance with the recommendations made by a Presidential Emergency Board. (13) Representing BRC in negotiations between the Fourteen Cooperating Standard Railroad Labor Organizations and the Carriers Conference Committee, which resulted in the 1945 amendments to the National Vacation Agreement. (14) Representing BRC on the National Vacation Committee, which dealt with questions arising under the National Vacation Agreement. (15) Participating in conferences with representatives of the Railway Express Agency and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, concerning the representation of express drivers in Detroit, Michigan. (16) Participating in proceedings which extended BRC’s agreement to cover additional positions. (17) Representing BRC in jurisdictional disputes with other organizations, including ORT. 20. Goble is such a member of the BRC class as will fairly insure the adequate representation in this cause of all members of said class. 21. Goble is a person whose relationship to BRC is such that it could reasonably be expected that he would give and he did give, notice of this action to BRC. 22. Goble is a person whose relationship to BRC is such that it could be reasonably expected that he would give notice of this action to BRC’s Grand Lodge, Subordinate Units, System Boards of Adjustment, District Boards of Adjustment, Terminal Boards of Adjustment, and Lodges. 23. Defendant The Order of Railroad Telegraphers [hereinafter called “ORT”] is an unincorporated association of agents, telegraphers, and other employees of MKT and other railroad companies throughout the United States. 24. ORT has its principal office and place of business in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, but it has an office and does business in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. 25. ORT has.submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Court in this case. 26. ORT is the collective bargaining agent under the Railway Labor Act for the craft or class of employees commonly called “Telegraphers” on the lines of railroad operated by MKT and on the lines of other railroad companies throughout the United States. In those capacities, ORT makes collective bargaining agreements with MKT and with other railroad companies. All members of that craft or class are subject to such agreements. 27. ORT has a special Bureau which selects claims against railroads and progresses them to the Board in order to procure awards which will establish principles and precedents for use by ORT on those railroads and on other railroads in obtaining compliance with similar agreement provisions. 28. Awards 4735 and 5014, rendered by the Board in Dockets TE-4540 and TE-4953, established the principle that employees represented by ORT have the right to perform station clerical work. ORT will use those awards as precedents. 29. The members of ORT constitute a class; there are more than 40,000 members of that class and they are too numerous to bring them all before the Court; and the members of that class have a common interest in the facts and law of this case. 30. Defendant H. C. Kearby is one of the members of ORT constituting a class. At the time of service of process upon him, Kearby was also Second Vice-President of ORT and was one of nine Vice-Presidents of that Organization. He retired as Second Vice-President of ORT in 1953 but he is still a member of ORT. 31. When this action was commenced and when Kearby was served with process, he resided in Cook County, Illinois, and he maintained an office in his home in that County. 32. Kearby is sued individually, as an officer and managing agent of ORT, as a representative of the Grand Division, Subordinate Divisions, System Divisions, Local Divisions, and Local Boards- of Adjustment, of ORT, and as representative of the members of ORT constituting a class. 33. Kearby retired in 1953 and moved to Florida. At that time, he had been a Vice-President of ORT for more than 12 years. Kearby was elected by delegates to the Conventions of ORT who had been elected by members of ORT Lodges throughout the United States, including the ORT Lodges on MKT. 34. While a Vice-President of ORT, Kearby was required by ORT’s Constitution to devote his entire time to the interest of ORT under instructions from its President. 35. Before his election as a Vice-President of ORT, Kearby was a Local Chairman of ORT for 5 years and a General Chairman of ORT for 12 years, both on the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; and, in those capacities, Kearby interpreted ORT’s collective agreement with that Company and handled claims and grievances based upon the rules and working conditions of that agreement. 36. As required by ORT’s Constitution, Kearby made printed reports of his official acts and work to each regular session of the Grand Division -of ORT. Those reports and his testimony in this case show-: (a) During the period 1940 to 1953, Kearby, as a Vice-President of ORT, represented that Organization on assignments from its President, in a multitude of controversies on 54 railroads, including: Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Atlantic Coast Line Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Chicago and Eastern Illinois Chicago Great Western Chicago and North Western Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Colorado Southern Denver & Rio Grande Western Erie Florida East Coast Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Illinois Central Michigan Central Missouri-Kansas-Texas Missouri Pacific New York Central Northern Pacific Pennsylvania Pere Marquette Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Rutland St. Louis Southwestern Southern Pacific Texas & Pacific Union Pacific (b) Kearby performed those duties in C. and at other' places Washington, D. such as: State City Alabama: Mobile California: Los Angeles; San Francisco Colorado: Denver Florida: St. Augustine Illinois: Chicago Indiana: Indianapolis Michigan: Detroit Minnesota: Duluth; Minneapolis; St. Paul Missouri: Kansas City; St. Louis Nebraska: Omaha North Carolina: Wilmington Ohio: Cincinnati Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh Texas: Dallas; Fort Worth; Houston; San Antonio Washington: Spokane (e) Kearby’s activities, as a member and as a Vice-President of ORT, covered a variety of subjects affecting ORT, its members, and the class or craft represented by it, including: (1) Negotiating rules and working conditions and making collective agreements on numerous railroads. (2) Interpreting agreements between ORT and various railroads. (3) Preparing ORT cases for submission to the National Mediation Board and representing ORT in more than 20 mediation cases on various railroads and in hearings before that Board in Washington, D. C. (4) Representing ORT in negotiating agreements providing for employee representation in the administration of railroad hospital associations. (5) Disposing of claims and grievances on various railroads in conferences with General Chairmen of ORT and.railroad officials. ' (6) Assisting General Chairmen of ORT in interpreting and applying ORT agreements on all types of claims. (7) Negotiating supplements to ORT collective agreements on various railroads to include provisions of the National 40-Hour Week Agreement. (8) Negotiating for increases in rates of pay of specific positions on various railroads. (9) Acting as ORT’s representative in hearings on line abandonment applications conducted by the Interstate Commerce Commission at various places, including Washington, D. C. (10) Opposing applications to State Commissions for authority to close railroad stations. (11) Preparing cases, in the office of ORT’s President, for submission to’ the Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. (12) Serving as ORT Member of the Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. (13) Directing, from Peoria, Illinois, the activities of ORT members during the railroad strike on the Toledo, Peoria & Western, from October 1, 1945 to May 1, 1947. (14) Conferring, at Dallas, Texas, with ORT General Chairman Thompson, and personally handling a dispute on MKT between ORT and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. (15) Gathering data for use by ORT in its unsuccessful effort to intervene in BRC cases before the Board, involving station clerical work; and handling disputes created between ORT and the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company when that Company transferred station clerical work from employees subject to its agreement with ORT to employees subject to its agreement with BRC. 37. H. C. Kearby is such a member of the ORT class as will fairly insure the adequate representation in this cause of all members of said class.- 38. H. C. Kearby is a person whose relationship to ORT is such that-it could reasonably be expected that he would give, and he did give, notice of this action to ORT. 39. H. C. Kearby is a person whose relationship to ORT is such that it could be reasonably expected that he would give notice of this action to ORT’s Grand Division, Subordinate Divisions, System Divisions, Local Divisions, and Local Boards of Adjustment. 40. Defendant R. B. Boyington is one of the members of ORT constituting a class. He is also a director of ORT and Chairman of its Board of Directors. 41. Boyington maintains'an office in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, and he resides in Cook County, Illinois. 42. Boyington is sued individually, as an officer and managing agent of ORT, as a representative of the Grand Division, Subordinate Divisions, System Divisions, Local Divisions, and Local Boards of Adjustment, of ORT, and as a representative of the members of ORT constituting a class. 43. Boyinton was appointed a director in April 1944 to fill a vacancy. He was elected a director at the 1946 Convention of ORT by the delegates who had been elected by members of ORT Lodges throughout- the United States, including ORT Lodges on MKT. On October 1, 1952, the directors elected Boyington as Chairman of the Board. 44. Boyington is also General Chairman of Subordinate Division 76 of ORT and is Division Chairman of ORT on the Chicago and North Western Railroad. He has been a General Chairman of ORT for 32 years and Local Chairman in the Chicago Terminal for 40 years. 45. In the capacity of Local Chairman, Boyington handled employee grievances with the General Chairman and railroad officers, and he also handled claims of employees based on alleged violations of collective agreements by the railroad. 46. As General Chairman, Boyington negotiated, signed and approved BRC collective agreements; interpreted or applied such agreements; and participated in mediation proceedings on disputes' under them. 47. As required by ORT’s Constitution, the Board of Directors made printed reports of all its official acts to each regular session of the Grand Division of ORT. Those reports and the testimony of Boyington in this case show: (a) Many powers are conferred upon the Board of Directors of ORT by Article 13 of its Constitution. Among others, the Board is authorized to entertain all appeals from decisions of ORT’s Grand Officers. While Boyington has been a member, the Board of Directors has entertained 68 appeals from decisions of the President of ORT. Those appeals involved disputes on many railroads, including: Baltimore and Ohio Boston & Maine Chesapeake and Ohio Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Erie Illinois Central Louisiana and Arkansas Louisville & Nashville New York Central Northern Pacific Pennsylvania St. Louis-San Francisco Seaboard Air Line Southern Pacific Union Pacific Wabash (b) The appeals to the Board of Directors of ORT were from the following States: California Florida Indiana Iowa Louisiana Maine Minnesota Missouri Nebraska New York Pennsylvania South Dakota Tennessee Texas (c) The activities of Boyington, as a member of the Board of Directors of ORT, have covered a wide range of subjects affecting ORT, its members, and the class or craft represented by it, including: (1) Ruling on appeals from decisions of the President, regarding: a. Interpretation of ORT’s collective agreements as to seniority, displacement, and other employment rights. b. Authority of General Chairmen to negotiate amendments to current collective agreements. c. Validity of compromise settlement of dispute over request for upward adjustment of rates of pay of certain positions. d. Reinstatement of discharged employee to his former position. e. Legality of obtaining vote of members of General Committee by means of a mail ballot instead of at a meeting of the General Committee. f. Extent of penalty which should be imposed on an officer of ORT whose removal was demanded by a member on the ground of unbecoming conduct. g. Duty of a General Chairman to vote in order to break a tie vote of the General Committee, instead of declaring the measure lost by reason of a tie. h. Whether appellant should have been called for service when a railroad permitted the use of teletype machines to receive incoming messages and other matters of record during hours when ORT employees were not assigned to duty. i. Whether blocking of trains by switchtenders during the Laramie Avenue underpass construction by the City of Chicago, in 1949, was a violation of the Joint Relations Agreement of 1934 which ORT and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (BRT) negotiated for the purpose of providing a basis of settling jurisdictional disputes between ORT. and BRT. j. Should a railroad employee, while employed • as a staff officer of ORT, be entitled to an indefinite leave of absence with right to return to his railroad position. k. Should an improperly classified employee be removed from a position upon being properly classified or should the position be bulletined. l. When an employee is discharged for cause and does not appeal, is he, upon being rehired, entitled to his previous standing on the seniority roster. m. Was an election for the unexpired term of a Local Chairman valid when it included two districts before their consolidation had been duly consummated. (2) Conferring with ORT President Leighty concerning the advisability of his accepting the Chairmanship of the Railway Labor Executives’ Association, and approving his acceptance of that position. (3) Conferring with ORT President and members of his staff, concerning schedule matters and appeal cases on the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad. (4) Keeping fully informed of all business transactions of ORT. (5) Requiring the officers of ORT to file bonds satisfactory to the Board of Directors and exercising charge of such bonds. (6) Exercising full power to enforce the laws of ORT as they affect the work of the Grand Officers. 48. R. B. Boyington is such a member of the ORT class as will fairly insure the adequate representation in this cause of all members of said class. 49. R. B. Boyington is a person whose relationship to ORT is such that it could reasonably be expected that he would give notice of this action to ORT and to its Grand Division, Subordinate Divisions, System Divisions, Local Divisions, and Local Boards of Adjustment. 50. Defendant J. W. Whitehouse is one of the members of ORT constituting a class. He is also Seventh Vice-President of ORT and a labor member of the Third Division of the National Railroad Adjustment Board. 51. • Whitehouse maintains an office and resides in the City of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. 52. Whitehouse is sued individually, as an officer and managing agent of ORT, as a representative of the Grand Division, Subordinate Divisions, System Divisions, Local Divisions, and Local Boards of Adjustment, of ORT, and as a representative of the members of ORT constituting a class. 53. Whitehouse was appointed Seventh Vice-President of ORT, by its Board of Directors, to fill a vacancy, effective March 1, 1950. He was elected to that position at the regular session of the Grand Division of ORT in 1952 by the delegates who had been elected by the members of the Lodges of ORT throughout the United States, including those on MKT. 54. Whitehouse is required by ORT’s Constitution to devote his entire time to the interests of ORT under instructions from its President. 55. Before his appointment as Seventh Vice-President of ORT, Whitehouse was ORT General Chairman on the following railroads: Kentucky & Indiana Terminal; Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville; Elgin, Joliet & Eastern; and Chicago and Eastern Illinois. In those capacities, Whitehouse negotiated collective bargaining agreements between ORT and those Companies, interpreted those agreements, and handled claims and grievances based upon the rules and working conditions set forth in those agreements. He also assisted ORT President Leighty, members of his staff, and officers and representatives of other non-' operating labor organizations in handling disputes submitted to the 40-Hour Week Committee in Chicago; and read, analyzed, classified and indexed more than 5000 disputes submitted to that Committee for decision, involving all non-operating crafts and practically every railroad in the United States, as a result of the efforts of those organizations to conform individual agreements to the National 40-Hour Week Agreement. 56. As required by ORT’s Constitution, Whitehouse made a printed report of his official acts and work as a Vice-President to the regular session of the Grand Division of ORT in June, 1952. That report and the testimony of White-house in this case show: (a) Since March 1, 1950, J. W. White-house, as a Vice-President of ORT, has represented that Organization, on assignments from its President, in a multitude of controversies on 20 railroads, including: Baltimore & Ohio Central of Georgia Chesapeake and Ohio Chicago and North Western Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Louisville & Nashville Missouri-Kansas-Texas Missouri Pacific Norfolk Southern Union Pacific (b) Whitehouse performed those duties in many places, including: State City Alabama: Montgomery Georgia: Atlanta Illinois: Chicago Indiana: LaFayette Kentucky: Louisville Maryland: Baltimore Michigan: Manistee Missouri: St. Louis New York: New York North Carolina: Wilmington; Raleigh Pennsylvania: Scranton Virginia: Richmond (c) The activities of Whitehouse, as a Vice-President of ORT, covered a wide range of subjects affecting ORT, its members, and the class or craft represented by it, including: (1) Assisting ORT President, members of his staff, and officers and representatives of other non-operating labor organizations, in handling disputes submitted to the 40-Hour Week Committee in Chicago. (2) Assisting ORT committees with numerous problems arising from application of the 40-Hour Week rules. (3) Assisting ORT President and his staff in preparing submissions, oral arguments and rebuttals in various disputes taken to the Board as a result of efforts of ORT to supplement individual agreements to conform to the provisions of the National 40-Hour Week Agreement. (4) Assisting with the preparation of submissions to the Board in disputes originating on MKT and other railroads. (5) Conferring with ORT General Chairmen and railroad officials, and conforming collective agreements to the National 40-Hour Week Agreement. (6) Arguing ORT cases before the Board. (7) Assisting General Chairmen in opposing the discontinuance of station agencies. (8) Representing ORT in protecting employees involved in the Pennsylvania-Grand Trunk-Monon coordination of towers at Maynard, Indiana. (9) Conferring with General Chairmen and with officers of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, in connection with employee displacement problems resulting from the coordination of the communication services in Chicago. (10) Conferring with General Chairmen and railroad officials concerning jurisdictional disputes resulting from the assignment of communication work to employees not represented by ORT. (11) Handling claims and grievances of employees,' including jurisdictional disputes affecting other organizations. : (12) Attending meetings of General Chairmen’s Association and engaging in ORT organization work. (13) Participating in conferences for the consolidation, revision, and unification of the agreements between ORT and the four railroad companies which merged into the Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company. 57. J. W. Whitehouse is such a member of the ORT class as will fairly insure the adequate representation in this cause of all members of said class. 58. J. W. Whitehouse is a person whose relationship to ORT is such that it could reasonably be expected that he would give notice of this action to ORT and to its Grand Division, Subordinate Divisions, System Divisions, Local Divisions, and Local Boards of Adjustment. 59. The disputes submitted .to the Board by BRC and ORT which resulted in Awards 3932, 3933, 3934, 4735 and 5014, raised this fundamental question: What class of employees (those represented by BRC or those represented by ORT) has the right to perform station clerical work. This has been a longstanding jurisdictional dispute between BRC and ORT on railroads throughout the United States which affects all members of BRC and ORT. 60. The jurisdictional dispute between BRC and ORT as to what class of employees has the right to perform station clerical work adversely affects the members and procedure of the Board, and, at the instigation of the President of BRC, resulted in the dismissal in 1942 of H. C. Kearby, ORT Board member. 61. ' Kearby was dismissed from the Board by majority vote of the chief executives of railroad labor unions, known as the Railway Labor Executives’ Association, who select, control and discipline labor members of the Board, determine their policies as to Board procedure, and exert the power of the Association to enforce compliance with awards of the Board. ■ 62. After the dismissal of H. C. Kearby as ORT Board member, ORT was left without a representative on the Board, and ORT was denied the right to intervene in BRC cases before the Board. 63. In subsequent litigation, ORT sought to establish its right to intervene in BRC cases before the Board. As a result of those efforts, ORT was threatened, on charges brought by BRC, with expulsion from the American Federation of Labor. 64. ORT regained its place on the Board in 1949, after subscribing to BRC’s program for Board procedure and joining BRC and other labor organizations in the following agreement: “The Chief Executives of the organizations which take cases to the Third Division agreed that any disputes brought to that Division would be supported by the Labor representatives on that Division, provided the provisions of the agreement of the organization submitting the claim did sustain the position taken by the organization. It was further agreed that in the event the application of a sustaining award would result in a violation of the rules of another agreement, the second organization could also bring a claim to the Third Division to correct such violation and in the event the rules of the agreement involved supported the claim all of the Labor Members of the Board would support that claim. In other words the decision of the Labor Members on the Board would be based upon the rules in the agreement of the Organization bringing the claim and they would vote to sustain the claim if supported by the rules of the agreement involved or to deny the claim if not supported by the rules of the agreement involved which is the intent and purpose of the Railway Labor Act.” This was the same procedural program previously advocated by BRC and which the labor members of the Board followed from July, 1942 to September, 1949, during which period there was no ORT representative on the Board. 65. On October 11, 1943, BRC submitted to the Board, in Docket CL-2544, the following claims against MKT, relating to “incidental clerical work” at Altus, Oklahoma: “(1) The carrier (Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company; Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company of Texas) violated and continues to violate its several agreements with the organization when on May 1, 1943, after due notice, it failed and refused to assign to positions covered by the said agreements, incidental clerical work, then and now performed at Altus, Oklahoma, by the Agent-Yardmaster, the so-called Telegrapher-Cashier and the so-called Telegrapher-Clerk; and “(2) That the carrier (Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company; Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company of Texas) refused and continues to refuse to classify and restore the work to the scope and operation of the clerical agreement; and “(3) That the carrier (Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company; Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company of Texas) shall now be required by an appropriate award and order of the Board to: “(a) Recreate the position of Chief Clerk — rate $7.10 per day, and “(b) Recreate the position of Cashier — rate $6.60 per day, and assign to the said positions and restore to the scope and operation of all the agreements and rules extant between the respective parties, all of the incidental clerical work, as set forth in the Statement of Fact, there to remain until removed therefrom by the proper processes set forth in the agreement (Rule 78) and the Railway Labor Act — 1934—amend-ed ; and “(4) That the said positions of Chief Clerk and Cashier be advertised and assigned under the appropriate rules of the agreement as May 1, 1943, and that any and all other employes adversely affected by the illegal and unlawful act of the carrier in assigning the said work and duties to positions and or persons not covered by the clerical agreement, shall be reimbursed for all their money losses.” of 66. By letter dated November 29, 1943, V. O. Gardner, President of ORT, informed the Board that certain employees of MKT represented by ORT were involved in the dispute filed with the Board by BRC; that those employees had expressed themselves as being materially affected by the outcome of that dispute; that they had signified a desire to present their interest before the Board when hearings were held or other adjudicatory action was taken on BRC’s claim; that said employees desired to be represented before the Board by ORT, through its duly accredited officers or agents; that there were parties other than the claimant and MKT who were interested and involved in the dispute and who would be affected by an award; and Gardner expressed a desire to be notified promptly of any action by the Board so that ample opportunity would be afforded such employees or their representatives to participate in any hearings or deliberations which might be conducted by the Board. Gardner enclosed with his letter of November 29, 1943, separate letters dated November 20,1943, each addressed to the Board by G. M. Singletary, J. C. Parks, and E. Dowdy, who held the positions of Agent-Yardmaster, Telegrapher-Cashier, and Telegrapher-Clerk, respectively, for MKT at Altus, Oklahoma. Each of those letters quoted BRC’s claim, as set forth in Finding 65, then pending before the Board, and each letter concluded with the following three paragraphs: “I am involved in this dispute for the reason that I am one of the employees referred to in the above claim, and I consider that my interests and rights will be adversely affected and placed in jeopardy if this claim should be sustained. “I therefore respectfully request a hearing as provided for by the Railway Labor Act, which procedure is in accord with an opinion given on the subject by the Attorney General of the "United States. “Being unable to appear in person before your Division, I hereby authorize The Order of Railroad Telegraphers, its officers or agents, to act as my duly accredited representative at any or all hearings on said claim. I delegate to The Order of Railroad Telegraphers full authority to appear thereat as my counsel and file briefs in my behalf.” 67. In eight dockets, including CL-2544, the Board deadlocked on the issue of giving notice of hearings to employees or Organizations other than those named as parties to the disputes. As stated in the Board’s minutes of March 16, 1944, the issue was: “Dockets CL-2374, CL-2379, CL-2400, CL-2425, MW-2367, CL-2499, CL-2526, CL-2527 and CL-2544 are deadlocked on the issue of giving notice to persons or organizations, other than parties to the disputes, whose interests may be affected by awards on the merits. The Carrier Members take the position that binding and conclusive awards can be rendered only after notice given to all whose rights may be involved.” The Board, with Referee Bruce Blake sitting as a member, decided that the dockets should be set down for hearings on the merits, without notice to anyone except those parties named in the disputes. Accordingly, notice of the hearing in Docket CL-2544 was given to BRC and MKT, but no notice was given to ORT, or to its officers, agents, representatives, or members, or to G. M. Singletary, or to J. C. Parks, or to E. Dowdy. •68. In its “Statement of Facts” in Docket CL-2544, MKT declared: (1) that its agreement with ORT antedated its agreement with BRC; (2) that its telegraph employees had always performed and were then performing, in varying volume and often for the major part of their tour of duty, clerical work of practically every character; (3) that this was true before, at the time of, and since adoption of the original BRC agreement and the revisions thereof; and (4) that employees holding the positions of Agent-Yardmaster, Telegrapher-Cashier, and Telegrapher-Clerk at Altus, Oklahoma, always had performed and were then performing clerical work in varying degrees. 69. Under the heading “Carrier’s Position” in Docket CL-2544, MKT asserted that the general performance of clerical work by employees under ORT’s agreement was a long, widespread, and well-known practice before MKT had any agreement with BRC; and that BRC for many years had acquiesced in the performance of general clerical work, without restrictions as to volume, by employees of practically every job classification under ORT’s agreement. 70. The Board held a hearing on the merits of BRC’s claim in Docket CL-2544. BRC and MKT, acting by and through their representatives, were the only parties who appeared and participated in that hearing. 71. After a hearing on the merits, the Board, with Referee Bruce Blake sitting as a member, on June 1, 1944, rendered Award 2597 in Docket CL-2544. The Board adhered to its former decision that notice of hearing should be given only to parties named in the dispute, but the Board, in accordance with its decision in Award 2596, Docket CL-2527, dismissed the case, without prejudice, because: (1) ORT had a vital interest in the outcome of the dispute; (2) to sustain the claim would deprive ORT and its members of most substantial and valuable rights; and (3) to deprive them of such rights, without giving them an opportunity to be heard, would be subversive of democratic principles and processes. 72. On June 29, 1944, BRC submitted to the Board, in Docket CL-2751, the following claims against MKT relating to “incidental clerical work” at Atoka, Oklahoma: “(1) The carrier (Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company, Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company of Texas) violated and continues to violate its several agreements with the organization, when on September 14, 1943, after due notice, it failed and refused to assign to positions covered by the said agreements, incidental clerical work then and now performed at Atoka, Oklahoma, by employes working outside the scope of the clerical agreement; and, “(2) That the carrier (Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company; Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company of Texas) refused and continues to refuse to classify and restore the work to the scope and operation of the clerical agreement; and, “(3) That the carrier (Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company, Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company of Texas) shall now be required by an appropriate award and order of the Board to create and maintain appropriate positions under the clerical agreement and assign to the said positions and restore to the scope and operation of all the agreements and rules extant between the respective parties, all of the incidental clerical work, as set forth in the Statement of Fact, there to remain until removed therefrom by the proper processes set forth in the agreement (Rule 78) and the Railway Labor Act — 1934—amend-ed; and, “(4) That the said positions shall be advertised and assigned under the appropriate rules of the agreement as of September 14, 1943, and that any and all employes adversely affected by the illegal and unlawful act of the carrier in assigning the said work and duties to the positions and or persons not covered by the clerical agreement, shall be reimbursed for all their money losses.” 73. In its “Statement of Facts” in Docket CL-2751, MKT declared: (1) that its agreement with ORT antedated its agreement with BRC; (2) that its telegraph employees had always performed and were then performing, in varying volume and often for the major part of their tour of duty, clerical work of practically every character; and (3) that this was true before, at the time of,' and since adoption of the original BRC agreement and the revisions thereof. 74. Under the heading “Carrier’s Position” in its original submission in Docket CL-2751, MKT advised the Board that ORT “has a direct and substantial interest in this case; and that it should be made a party hereto”; and MKT asserted that the general performance of clerical work by employees under ORT’s agreement was a long, widespread and well-known practice before MKT had any agreement with BRC; and that BRC for many years had acquiesced in the performance of general clerical work, without restrictions as to volume, by employees of practically every job classification under ORT’s agreement. 75. On July 31, 1944, BRC requested the Board’s permission to withdraw the case covered by Docket CL-2751. This request was granted and, on August 2, 1944, that case was dismissed by Award 2650. 76. On June 29,1944, BRC submitted to the Board, in Docket CL-2752, the following claims against MKT relating to “incidental clerical work” at Junction City, Kansas; Chanute, Kansas; Lock-hart, Texas; and Stamford, Texas: “(1) The carrier (Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company; Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company of Texas) violated and continues to violate its several agreements with the organization, when on October 4, 1943, after due notice, it failed and refused to assign to positions covered by the said agreements, incidental clerical work then and now performed at Junction City, Kansas, Chanute, Kansas, Lockhart, Texas, Stamford, Texas, by employes working outside the scope of the clerical agreement; and, “(2) That the carrier (Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company, Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company of Texas) refused and continues to refuse to classify and restore the work to the scope and operation of the clerical agreement; and, “(3) That the carrier (Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company, Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company of Texas) shall now be required by an appropriate award and order of the Board to create and maintain appropriate positions under the clerical agreement and assign to the said positions and restore to the scope and operation of all the agreements and rules extant between the respective parties, all of the incidental clerical work, as set forth in the Statement of Fact, there to remain until removed therefrom by the proper processes set forth, in the agreement (Rule 78) and the Railway Labor Act — 1934— amended; and “(4) That the said positions shall be advertised and assigned under the appropriate rules of the agreement as of October 4, 1943, and that any and all employes adversely affected by the illegal and unlawful act of the carrier in assigning the said work and duties to the positions and or persons not covered by the clerical agreement, shall be reimbursed for all their money losses.” 77. In its “Statement of Facts” in Docket CL-2752, MKT declared: (1) that its agreement with ORT antedated its agreement with BRC; (2) that its telegraph employees had always performed and were then performing, in varying volume and often for the major part of their tour of duty, clerical work of practically every character; and (3) that this was true before, at the time of, and since adoption of the original BRC agreement and the revisions thereof. 78. Under the heading “Carrier’s Position” in its original submission in Docket CL-2752, MKT advised the Board that ORT “has a direct and substantial interest in this case; and that it should be made a party thereto”; and MKT asserted that the general performance of clerical work by employees under ORT’s agreement was a long, widespread and well-known practice before MKT had any agreement with BRC; and that BRC for many years had acquiesced in the performance of general clerical work, without restrictions as to volume, by employees of practically every job classification under ORT’s agreement. 79. On July 31, 1944, BRC requested the Board’s permission to withdraw the case covered by Docket CL-2752. This request was granted and, on August 2, 1944, that case was dismissed by Award 2651. 80. On April 17, 1947, BRC submitted to the Board in Docket CL-3714 the identical claims quoted in Finding 65 relating to “incidental clerical work” at Altus, Oklahoma, which claims were first submitted to the Board on October 11, 1943, in Docket CL-2544, and dismissed, without prejudice, on June 1, 1944, by Award 2597. 81. BRC’s ex parte submission in Docket CL-3714, and other documents filed by BRC in that docket, showed that ORT and employees of MKT subject to the collective agreement between MKT and ORT were involved in the dispute and that, in order to comply with an award in favor of BRC, MKT would be required to take clerical work away from employees subject to ORT’s agreement and to assign the same clerical work to employees subject to BRC’s agreement. 82. In its “Statement of Facts” in Docket CL-3714, MKT adopted all of its statements of fact in Docket CL-2544, including those set forth in Finding 68. MKT also called the Board’s attention to Award 2597 which dismissed, without prejudice, the identical claims presented in Docket CL-2544 because: (1) ORT had a vital interest in the outcome of the dispute; (2) to sustain the claims would deprive ORT and its members of most substantial and valuable rights; and (3) to deprive them of such rights, without giving them an opportunity to be heard, would be subversive of democratic principles and processes. 83. Under the heading “Position of Carrier” in its submission in Docket CL-3714, MKT called the Board’s attention to the absence of ORT, in these words: “This claim * * * has not made and does not contemplate making The Order of Railroad Telegraphers a party to the action, but rather seeks to exclude that organization. “No notice is given to a party to be affected. No opportunity is given such party to be heard and present every available defense.” 84. Notice of the hearing in Docket CL-3714 was given to BRC and MKT but no notice was given to ORT, or to its officers, agents, representatives, or members, or to the persons holding the affected positions of Agent-Yardmaster, Telegrapher-Cashier, and Telegrapher-Clerk at Altus, Oklahoma. 85. The Board held a hearing on the merits of BRC’s claims in Docket CL-3714. BRC and MKT, acting by and through their representatives, were the only parties who appeared and participated in that hearing. 86. On June 10,1948, the Board, with Referee James M. Douglas sitting as a member thereof, rendered Award 3932 in Docket CL-3714, sustaining claims (1), (2), and (3), and all of claim (4) except the demand for money losses. On the same date, the Board issued an Order directing MKT to make that award effective. 87. The Board issued Award 3932, and the Order accompanying that Award, without giving ORT and the Agent-Yardmaster, Telegrapher-Cashier, and Telegrapher-Clerk at Altus, Oklahoma, an opportunity to be heard in Docket CL-3714. 88. At the request of BRC, the Board, with Referee James M. Douglas sitting as a member thereof, on December 20, 1949, issued Interpretation No. 1 to Award 3932 in Docket CL-3714, declaring that “the Award ruled in effect”: “1. That the clerical work in question should have been assigned to positions under the Clerks’ Agreement, and Carrier violated such Agreement by permitting the three employes under the Telegraphers’ Agreement at Altus to perform it. “2. That Carrier improperly refused to restore such work to the Clerks. “3. That Carrier was ordered to recreate the positions of Chief Clerk and of Cashier at Altus, and to restore such work to those positions. “4. That Carrier was ordered to advertise and assign such positions to Clerks, but without liability for retroactive penalties.” There was no hearing on BRC’s request for this interpretation and the Board gave no notice of the filing of this request to ORT, or to its officers, agents, representatives, or members, or to the persons holding the affected positions of Agent-Yardmaster, Telegrapher-Cashier, and Telegrapher-Clerk at Altus, Oklahoma. 88%. On November 23, 1949, MKT replied to BRC’s request for án interpretation of Award 3932. Among other things, MKT adopted the “position and defenses” which it had urged in Dockets CL-2544 and CL-3714, as set forth in Findings 68-69 and 82-83, and cited the following cases in support of its position; Hunter v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., D.C., 78 F.Supp. 984, Id., 7 Cir., 171 F.2d 594, certiorari denied Shepherd v. Hunter, 337 U.S. 916, 69 S.Ct. 1157, 93 L.Ed. 1726; Templeton v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., D.C., 84 F.Supp. 162; Reynolds v. Denver & R. G. W. R. Co., 10 Cir., 174 F.2d 673; Ramsey v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., D.C., 75 F.Supp. 740; Southern Pacific Co. v. Bishop et al., U.S.Dist. Ct.Northern Dist. of Ill., Eastern Division; MKT followed the citation of these cases with these statements: “In the case of Hunter v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., Shepherd et al., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals declared Award No. 6640 of the First Division, National Railroad Adjustment Board, void and permanently enjoined enforcement because train porters adversely affected by the award had not been given notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard as required by due process of law. “In Templeton v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., cited above, the U. S. Court held awards Nos. 6635, 6637, 6638, and 6639 of First Division, NRAB, void because employes represented by Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employes, who were adversely affected, had not been given notice and hearing in accordance with due process of law. “No notice was ever given any employe of hearing in this case and the award can not be used in behalf of any employe. It is elemental that it is not within the power of any tribunal to make a binding adjudication of the rights in personam of parties not before it by due process of law; National Licorice Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 309 U.S. 350, at page 362, 60 S.Ct. 569, 84 L.Ed. 799; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565; Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189, 35 S.Ct. 579, 59 L.Ed. 910; State of Arizona v. State of California, 298 U.S. 558, 571, 572, 56 S.Ct. 848, 80 L.Ed. 1331; Elgin, J. & E. Ry. Co. v. Burley, 325 U.S. 711, 65 S.Ct. 1282, 89 L.Ed. 1886.” On December 3, 1949, BRC answered the above mentioned reply of MKT. Among other things, BRC attempted to distin? guish the Hunter ease, and also made the following statement: “A careful reading of the carrier’s (MKT) letter of November 29, 1949, very conclusively shows the necessity for the requested interpretation for the reason that, the Award notwithstanding, the carrier is still insisting that it has the same right now that it had under the National Agreement to assign the work of writing and calculating incident to keeping records, accounts, etc., to agents and telegraphers, as was urged by it prior to the rendition of Award No. 3932.” [Finding 88 % added Sept. 4, 1954.] 89. On April 17, 1947, BRC submitted to the Board, in Docket CL-3715, the identical claims quoted in Finding 76, relating to “incidental clerical work” at Junction City, Kansas; Chanute, Kansas; Lockhart, Texas; and Stamford, Texas; which claims were first submitted to the Board on June 29, 1944, in Docket CL-2752, and dismissed on August 2, 1944, at the request of .BRC by Award 2651. 90. BRC’s ex parte submission in Docket CL-3715, and other documents filed by BRC in that docket, showed that ORT and employees of MKT subject to the collective agreement between MKT and ORT were involved in the dispute and that, in order to comply with an award in favor of BRC, MKT would be required to take clerical work away from employees subject to ORT’s agreement and to assign the same clerical work to employees subject to BRC’s agreement. 91. In its- “Statement of Facts” in Docket CL-3715, MKT adopted all its statements of fact in Docket CL-2752, including those set forth in Finding 77. MKT also called the Board’s attention to Award 2597 which dismissed similar claims in Docket CL-2544 because: (1) ORT had a vital interest in the outcome of the dispute; (2) to sustain the claims would deprive ORT and its members of most substantial and valuable rights; and (3) to deprive them of such rights, without giying them an opportunity to be heard, would be subversive of democratic principles and processes. 92. Under the heading “Position of Carrier” in its submission in Docket CL-3715, MKT called the Board’s attention to the absence of ORT, in these words: “This claim * * * has not made and does not contemplate making The Order of Railroad Telegraphers a party to the action, but rather seeks to exclude that organization. “No notice is given to a party to be affected. No opportunity is given such party to be heard and present every available defense”; and MKT adopted its position as stated in Docket CL-2752, including the matters and things set forth in Finding 78. 93. Notice of the hearing in Docket CL-3715 was given to BRC and MKT but no notice was given to ORT, or to its officers, agents, representatives, or members, or to the persons holding the positions of Agent and Telegrapher-Cashier at Chanute, Kansas; Agent-Telegrapher at Junction City, Kansas; Agent-Telegrapher, and Telegrapher-Cashier at Lock-hart, Texas; and Agent, Telegrapher-Cashier, and Telegrapher-Clerk at Stamford, Texas. 94. The Board held a hearing on the merits of BRC’s claims in Docket CL-3715. BRC and MKT, acting by and through their representatives, were the only parties who appeared and participated in that hearing. 95. On June 10,1948, the Board, with Referee James M. Douglas sitting as a member thereof, rendered Award 3933 in Docket CL-3715, sustaining claims (1), (2), and (3), and all of claim (4) except the demand for money losses. On the same date, the Board issued an Order directing MKT to make that award effective. 96. The Board issued Award 3933, and the Order accompanying that Award, without giving ORT and the Agent, and Telegrapher-Cashier, at Chanute, Kansas; Agent-Telegrapher at ' Junction City, Kansas; Agent-Telegrapher, and Telegrapher-Cashier at Lockhart, Texas; and Agent, Telegrapher-Uashier, and Telegrapher-Clerk at Stamford, Texas, an opportunity to be heard in Docket CL-3715. 97. On April 17, 1947, BRC submitted to the Board, in Docket CL-3716, the identical claims quoted in Finding 72, relating to “incidental clerical work” at Atoka, Oklahoma, which claims were first submitted to the Board on June 29, 1944, in Docket CL-2751, and dismissed on August 2, 1944, at the request of BRC, by Award 2650. 98. BRC’s ex parte submission in Docket CL-3716, and other documents filed by BRC in that docket, showed that ORT and employees of MKT subject to the collective agreement between MKT and ORT were involved in the dispute and that, in order to comply with an award in favor of BRC, MKT would be required to take clerical work away from employees subject to ORT’s agreement and to assign the same clerical work to employees subject to BRC’s agreement. 99. In its “Statement of Facts” in Docket CL-3716, MKT adopted all its statements of fact in Docket CL-2751, including those set forth in Finding 73. MKT also called the Board’s attention to Award 2597 which dismissed similar claims in Docket CL-2544 because: (1) ORT had a vital interest in the outcome of the dispute; (2) to sustain the claims would deprive ORT and its members of most substantial and valuable rights; and (3) to deprive them of such rights, without giving them an opportunity to be heard, would be subversive of democratic principles and processes. 100. Under the heading “Position of Carrier” in its submission in Docket CL-3716, MKT called the Board’s attention to the absence of ORT, in these words: “This claim * * * has not made and does not contemplate making The Order of Railroad Telegraphers á party to the action, but rather seeks to exclude that organization. “No notice is given to a party to be. affected. No opportunity is given such party to be heard and present every available defense”; and MKT adopted its position as stated in Docket- CL-2751, including the matters and things set forth in Finding 74. 101. Notice of the hearing in Docket CL-3716 was given to BRC and MKT but no notice was given to ORT, or to its officers, agents, representatives, or members, or to the persons holding the affected positions of Agent and Telegrapher-Clerk at Atoka, Oklahoma. 102. The Board held a hearing on the merits of BRC’s claims in Docket CL-3716. BRC and MKT, acting by and through their representatives, were the only parties who appeared and participated in that hearing. 103. On June 10, 1948, the Board, with Referee James M. Douglas sitting as a member thereof, rendered Award 3934 in Docket CL-3716, sustaining claims (1), (2), and (3), and all of claim (4) except the demand for money losses. On the same date, the Board issued an Order directing MKT to make that award effective. 104. The Board issued Award 3934, and the Order accompanying that Award, without giving ORT, and the Agent and Telegrapher-Clerk at Atoka, Oklahoma, an opportunity to be heard in Docket CL-3716. 105. BRC, acting by and through A. J. Pickett, General Chairman of BRC on MKT, interpreted Awards 3932, 3933, and 3934, as applying to all stations on MKT. Only six stations were named in those awards. On June 22, 1948, Pickett circularized “All Division Chairmen” on MKT, sending them copies of Awards 3932, 3933, and 3934, and instructing them as follows: “Inasmuch as it has legally and lawfully (been) determined that our (BRC) agreement comprehends in its coverage all incidental clerical work, it is incumbent upon you to bring about one hundred per cent enforcement of this fact. Will each of you therefore as promptly as is possible make or have made a study of the clerical work performed by the agents, telegraph-operators and others at the following points * * (naming 33 MKT stations