## Facts

- A majority of the railroad’s clerical employees (excluding general office employees) authorized the Brotherhood to represent them in employment matters, and the railroad recognized it beginning in 1918.
- In 1925, the Brotherhood sought a wage increase; after the railroad denied it, the dispute was referred to the U.S. Board of Mediation under federal railway labor law.
- While the mediation was pending, the railroad promoted formation of a separate clerical-employee organization, the “Association of Clerical Employees – Southern Pacific Lines.”
- The Brotherhood alleged the railroad instigated and supported the Association, intimidated employees, and pressured them to withdraw from the Brotherhood and accept the Association as their representative.
- The Brotherhood and its system representative sued in federal court seeking to enjoin the railroad from interfering with employees’ self-organization and choice of representatives under the Railway Labor Act of 1926.
- After a temporary injunction issued, the railroad nonetheless recognized the Association as representative, asserting it held majority authorizations.
- The district court found the railroad had promoted the Association in the company’s interest and against the Brotherhood, amounting to interference with employees’ freedom of choice.

## Issues

1. Whether Railway Labor Act § 2, Third’s ban on “interference, influence, or coercion” in designation of representatives creates a judicially enforceable obligation.
2. Whether enforcing that prohibition against a carrier is constitutional.
3. Whether the lower courts clearly erred in finding the carrier interfered by promoting an employer-favored association and pressuring employees.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the decree upholding the permanent injunction and related remedial orders.
- The Court held § 2, Third is a definite statutory prohibition that courts may enforce, not a mere statement of policy.
- The Court held the prohibition is constitutional under Congress’s commerce power; a carrier has no constitutional right to interfere with employees’ representative choice.
- The Court accepted the concurrent factual findings of the district court and court of appeals that the railroad promoted an employer-aligned association and coerced employees.
- The Court approved injunctive relief aimed at stopping interference and curing its effects, including orders requiring dissolution of the employer-dominated association and a secret-ballot process for selecting representatives free from carrier pressure.

## Legal Principles

- Railway Labor Act § 2, Third requires representatives to be designated “without interference, influence, or coercion” by the other side; this duty is judicially enforceable.
- A “definite statutory prohibition” that prevents frustration of a statute’s purpose may be enforced in court even if the statute does not specify a particular penalty.
- “Influence” in § 2, Third means pressure or abuse of authority that corrupts or overrides employees’ will, not ordinary, innocent employer-employee communications.
- Employee freedom to choose representatives is essential to the Railway Labor Act’s dispute-resolution scheme; coerced selection undermines the Act’s labor-peace objective tied to interstate commerce.
- Congress may constitutionally restrict carriers from using their power to interfere with employee self-organization and representative selection.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld broad equitable relief against a carrier that promoted an employer-aligned employee association to displace an established union, ruling that the Railway Labor Act’s anti-interference mandate is enforceable in court and valid under the Constitution because uncoerced representative choice is necessary to the Act’s interstate-commerce labor-peace framework.


Tex. & New Orleans R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Ry. & S.S. Clerks, 281 U.S. 548 (1930)