The Court Rules Against Railway Union Contracts
A federal judge sides with the Lake Shore Road receiver, ruling that collective labor contracts do not bind court-appointed management.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Judge Hanford has filed an opinion in the United States court regarding the demurrer of receivers Thomas B. Brown and John H. Bryant, of the Lake Shore road, against a petition from the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen. The union sought to force the receivers to honor a contract that prohibited the discharge of employees without cause and required arbitration for disputes. Judge Hanford ruled that such labor contracts are not binding on a receiver, describing the union's argument as 'fallacious and without any foundation in law.' The court held that a receiver, as an agent of the court, must maintain 'freedom' to select staff in whom they have confidence, and that holding them to arbitration with 'fellow servants' would be an unacceptable restriction of their authority.
“The idea that employes in the service of railway corporation have such an interest in the railway property... is fallacious and without any foundation in law.”
This 1895 ruling by Judge Cornelius Hanford captures the era's legal hostility toward collective bargaining. It serves as a stark reminder of how the judiciary often prioritized the 'discretion' of management over worker protections, a central tension in labor law that would define the American labor movement for decades.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.