APPEAL CASE PROMPTLY

   As soon as the investigation is over and it is known the defendant will be censored, efforts should be made to clear the man's record.

   This can sometimes be done by the local representative if he is in rapport with his local officials. He should avoid an early discussion of leniency in writing.

   It can better be done by immediately forwarding the transcript, if possible, with comments to the General Chairman, who can immediately discuss the case with the carrier general officers. This has proven so successful on some railroads that, contrary to the requirement favored by most chairmen that a decision be rendered in 3 days, these chairmen favor a longer period before discipline is assessed, so that the local officers will not be precipitated into a decision that will have to be reversed.

   The reason for the General Chairman's success in this phase of the appeal, is that he is dealing with officers who are not so personally concerned and so are more objective. It is also a recognized fact that the higher the officer in the company, the more liberal his labor policy.

   It is dangerous to rest on a case after an investigation is over. If an employee is discharged, his livelihood is too important a consideration to jeopardize by dilatory handling. Hearings being what they are, the final outcome cannot be vouchsafed, and discretion is the better part of valor when a man's right to work is at stake.

   In appealing, there are two court decisions you may wish to consider:

   Washington Terminal Company v. Boswell (124 f 2nd 235) has ruled that after a case has been acted upon by the National Railroad Adjustment Board you may not appeal to the courts except as provided by the Railway Labor Act.

   But in Moore v. Illinois Central Railroad Company (312 U.S. 630 at 634) the Supreme Court has said if you do not choose to follow the administrative procedures specified by the Railway Labor Act, you may sue directly in the general courts. Justice Black has said:

   But we find nothing in that Act which purports to take away from the courts the jurisdiction to determine a controversy over a wrongful discharge or to make an administrative finding a prerequisite to filing a suit in court.

.. and yet we must, with candor, urge that the best investigation was the one never held.