281 U. S. 548

ceeded their powers. The Court held that the Board had jurisdiction to hear and decide a dispute over rules and working conditions upon the application of either side, when the parties had failed to agree and an adjustment board had not been organized. The Board also had jurisdiction to decide who might represent the employees in the conferences contemplated by the statute and to make reasonable rules for ascertaining the will of the employees in this respect. Interference by injunction with the exercise of the discretion of the Board in the matters committed to it, and with the publication of its opinions, was decided to be unwarranted. The Court thought it evident that Congress considered it to be "of the highest public interest to prevent the interruption of interstate commerce by labor disputes and strikes," and that its plan was "to encourage settlement without strikes, first by conference between the parties; failing that, by reference to adjustment boards of the parties' own choosing," and, if this proved to be ineffective, "by a full hearing before a National Board" organized as the statute provided. But the Court added: "The decisions of the Labor Board are not to be enforced by process. The only sanction of its decision is to be the force of public opinion invoked by the fairness of a full hearing, the intrinsic justice of the conclusion, strengthened by the official prestige of the Board, and the full publication of the violation of such decision by any party to the proceeding." It was said to be the evident thought of Congress "that the economic interest of every member of the Public in the undisturbed flow of interstate commerce and the acute inconvenience to which all must be subjected by an interruption caused by a serious and widespread labor dispute, fastens public attention closely on all the circumstances of the controversy and arouses public criticism of the side thought to be at [562] fault." Id. pp. 79, 80. The Court concluded that the Labor Board was "to act as a Board of Arbitration," but that there was "no constraint" upon the parties "to do what the Board decides they should do except the normal constraint of publication of its decision." Id. p. 84.

The provisions of Title III of the Transportation Act, 1920, were again before the Court in Pennsylvania Railroad System and Allied Lines Federation No. 90 v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 267 U. S. 203. This was a suit by a union to enjoin the Railroad Company from carrying out an alleged conspiracy to defeat the provisions of the legislation establishing the Railroad Labor Board. The complainants, the Court said, sought "to enforce by mandatory injunction a compliance with a decision of the Board"; and the Court held that "such a remedy by injunction in a court, it was not the intention of Congress to provide." Id. p. 216. The Court pointed out that "the ultimate decision of the Board, it is conceded, is not compulsory, and

281 U. S. 548

no process is furnished to enforce it." It was in the light of these conclusions as to the purport of the statute that the Court considered the freedom of action of the Railroad Company. The Court said that the Company was using "every endeavor to avoid compliance with the judgment and principles of the Labor Board as to the proper method of securing representatives of the whole body of its employees," that it was "seeking to control its employees by agreements free from the influence of an independent trade union," and, so far as concerned its dealing with its employees, was "refusing to comply with the decisions of the Labor Board." But the Court held that this conduct was within the strict legal rights of the Railroad Company and that Congress had not intended to make such conduct legally actionable. Id. p. 217.

It was with clear appreciation of the infirmity of the existing legislation, and in the endeavor to establish a [563] more practicable plan in order to accomplish the desired result, that Congress enacted the Railway Labor Act of 1926. It was decided to make a fresh start. The situation was thus described in the report of the bill to the Senate by the Committee on Interstate Commerce (69th) Cong., 1st sess., Sen. Rep. No. 22): "In view of the fact that the employees absolutely refuse to appear before the labor board and that many of the important railroads are themselves opposed to it, that it has been held by the Supreme Court to have no power to enforce its judgments, that its authority is not recognized or respected by the employees and by a number of important railroads, that the President has suggested that it would be wise to seek a substitute for it, and that the party platforms of both the Republican and Democratic Parties in 1924 clearly indicated dissatisfaction with the provisions of the transportation act relating to labor, the committee concluded that the time had arrived when the labor board should be abolished and the provisions relating to labor in the transportation act, 1920, should be repealed."

The bill was introduced as the result of prolonged conferences between representative committees of railroad presidents and of executives of railroad labor organizations, and embodied an agreement of a large majority of both. The provisions of Title III of the Trans

2 In the report of the bill by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to the House of Representatives, it was said (69th Cong. 1st sess., H. R. Rep. No. 328): "The bill was introduced as the product of negotiations and conferences between a representative committee of railroad presidents and a representative committee of railroad labor organization executives, extending over several months, which were concluded with the approval of the bill, respectively, by the Association of Railway Executives and by the executives of 20 railroad labor organizations. As introduced, it represented the agreement of railroad managements operating over 80 per cent of the railroad mileage and labor organizations representing an overwhelming majority of the railroad employees."

The committee of the Senate on Interstate Commerce reported to the Senate on this point, as follows (69th Cong., 1st sess., Sen. Rep. No. 222):

"The railroads favoring the bill appeared before the committee through their representatives and advocated it. None of the railroads opposing the bill appeared either in person

281 U. S. 548

portation Act, 1920, and also the Act of July 15, 1913 (c. 6, 38 Stat. [564] 103) which provided for mediation, conciliation and arbitration in controversies with railway employees, were repealed.

While adhering in the new statute to the policy of providing for the amicable adjustment of labor disputes, and for voluntary submissions to arbitration as opposed to a system of compulsory arbitration, Congress buttressed this policy by creating certain definite legal obligations. The outstanding feature of the Act of 1926 is the provision for an enforceable award in arbitration proceedings. The arbitration is voluntary, but the award pursuant to the arbitration is conclusive upon the parties as to the merits and facts of the controversy submitted. (Section 9.) The award is to be filed in the clerk's office of the District Court of the United States designated in the agreement to arbitrate, and unless a petition to impeach the award is filed within ten days, the court is to enter judgment on the award, and this judgment is final and conclusive. Petition for the impeachment of the award may be made upon the grounds that the award does not conform to the substantive requirements of the Act or to the stipulation of the parties, or that the proceedings were not in accordance with the Act or were tainted with fraud or corruption. But the court is not to entertain such a petition on the ground that the award is invalid for uncer[556]tainty, and in such case the remedy is to be found in a submission of the award to a reconvened board or to a sub-committee thereof for interpretation, as provided in the Act. Thus it is contemplated that the proceedings for the amicable adjustment of disputes will have an appropriate termination in a binding adjudication, enforceable as such.

Another definite object of the. Act of 1926 is to provide, in case of a dispute between a carrier and its employees which has not been adjusted under the provisions of the Act, for the more effectual protection of interstate commerce from interruption to such a degree as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service. (Section 10.) In case the Board of Mediation established by the Act, as an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, finds that such an interruption of interstate commerce is threatened, that Board is to notify the President, who may thereupon in his discretion create an emergency board of investigation to report, within thirty days, with respect to the dispute. The Act then provides that "After the creation of such board and for thirty days after such board has made its report to the President, no change, except by agreement, shall be made by the parties to the controversy

or by any representative. The bill was agreed to also by all the organizations known as standard recognized railway labor organizations,' 20 in number and these appeared by their representatives before the committee in advocacy of the bill."

281 U. S. 548

in the conditions out of which the dispute arose." (Id.) This prohibition, in order to safeguard the vital interests of the country while an investigation is in progress, manifestly imports a legal obligation. The Brotherhood insists, and we think rightly, that the major purpose of Congress in passing the Railway Labor Act was "to provide a machinery to prevent strikes." Section 10 is described by counsel for the Brotherhood as "a provision limiting the right to strike," and in this view it is insisted that there "is no possible question that Congress intended to make the provisions of Section 10 enforceable to the extent of authorizing any court of competent jurisdiction to restrain [566] either party to the controversy from changing the existing status during the sixty-day period provided for the emergency board." 3

The provision of Section 10 is to be read in connection with the qualification in subdivision eighth of Section 9 that nothing in the Act shall be construed to require an individual employee to render labor without his consent or as making the quitting of service by an individual employee an illegal act, and that no court shall issue any process to compel the performance by an individual employee of labor without his consent. The purpose of this [567] limitation was manifestly to protect the individual liberty of employees and not to affect proceedings in case of combinations or group action. The denial of legal process in the one case is significant with respect to its expected, appropriate use in the other."

In the report to the House of Representatives by its Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, it was stated as to this provision (69th Cong., 1st sess., H. R. Rep. No. 328):

"This temporary emergency board will be able to express and to mobilize public opinion to an extent impossible to any permanent board or any agency of Government which has been heretofore created for that purpose. It is also highly important to point out that during the period of investigation and for 30 days thereafter the parties to the controversy are bound under the proposed law to maintain unchanged the conditions out of which the dispute arose, thereby assuring the parties and the public that the emergency board will have the full and unembarrassed opportunity to exert its authority and fulfil its important function."

The Committee on Interstate Commerce of the Senate stated in its report, with respect to a proposed amendment of section 10 forbidding strikes eo nomine, as follows (69th Cong., 1st sess., Sen. Rep. No. 222):

"The objection that the bill should in express terms forbid strikes during the period of the inquiry by the emergency board and for 30 days thereafter is successfully met, in the opinion of the committee, by the contention that in forbidding a change in the conditions out of which a dispute arose, one of which and a very fundamental one is the relationship of the parties, it already forbids any interruption of commerce during the period referred to; and if strikes were in express terms forbidden for a given period there might be an implication that after the period strikes to interfere with the passage of the United States mails and with continuous transportation service might be made legal. In hte opinion of the committee this possible implication should be avoided.”

In relation to this paragraph, the Senate Committee stated in its report (69th Cong., 1st sess., Sen. Rep. No. 222):

"As to paragraph (8) of section 9, it was urged that it should be clarified so as certainly to apply only to the use of legal process against an individual employee and so as not to apply to combinations or conspiracies between several employees, or groups of employees, to interrupt interstate commerce. It was frankly stated by the advocates of the bill, both

281 U. S. 548

It is thus apparent that Congress, in the legislation of 1926, while elaborating a plan for amicable adjustments and voluntary arbitration of disputes between common carriers and their employees, thought it necessary to impose, and did impose, certain definite obligations enforceable by judicial proceedings. The question before us is whether a legal obligation of this sort is also to be found in the provisions of subdivision third of Section 2 of the Act providing that "Representatives for the purposes of this Act, shall be designated by the respective parties without interference, influence, or coercion exercised by either party over the self-organization or designation of representatives by the other."

It is at once to be observed that Congress was not content with the general declaration of the duty of carriers and employees to make every reasonable effort to enter into and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, [568] rules and working conditions, and to settle disputes with all expedition in conference between authorized representatives, but added this distinct prohibition against coercive measures. This addition can not be treated as superfluous or insignificant, or as intended to be without effect. Ex parte Public National Bank, 278 U. S. 101, 104. While an affirmative declaration of duty contained in a legislative enactment may be of imperfect obligation because not enforceable in terms, a definite statutory prohibition of conduct which would thwart the declared purpose of the legislation cannot be disregarded. The intent of Congress is clear with respect to the sort of conduct that is prohibited. "Interference" with freedom of action and "coercion" refer to well understood concepts of the law. The meaning of the word "influence" in this clause may be gathered from the context. Noscitur a sociis. Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. S. 503, 519. The use of the word is not to be taken as interdicting the normal relations and innocent communications which are a part of all friendly intercourse, albeit between employer and employee. "Influence" in this context plainly means pressure, the use of the authority or power of either party to induce action by the other in derogation of what the statute calls "self-organization." The phrase covers the abuse of relation or opportunity so as to corrupt or override the will, and it is no more difficult to appraise conduct of this sort in connection with the selection of representatives for the purposes of this Act than in relation to well-known applications of the law with respect to fraud, duress and undue influence. If Congress intended that the prohibition, as

those representing the carriers and those representing the employees, that the purpose of the paragraph was to deal merely with individual employees, to express only the constitutional right of individuals against involuntary servitude, and was not intended to deal with combinations, conspiracies, or group action. This construction has been made abundantly clear by an amendment to the bill by which the word 'individual' has been inserted before the word 'employee' wherever the latter word appears in the paragraph."