Supreme Court of the United States

Chicago & Alton Railroad v. United States

1918 U.S. LEXIS 1971 · 247 U.S. 197 · 38 S. Ct. 442 · 62 L. Ed. 1066

May 20, 1918 · Docket 640

Queued for AI processing — next in lineest. ~148 min

Headnotes

Generated summaries
  1. Headnote 1

    The statute’s language expressly includes “other employee” who performs telegraphic or telephone communication relating to train movements, extending coverage beyond formally designated dispatchers.

  2. Headnote 2

    Section 2 limits the prohibition to locations that are staffed around the clock, distinguishing them from facilities operating only during daytime.

  3. Headnote 3

    The statutory ceiling is mandatory to prevent fatigue, and the law authorizes no extension beyond nine hours unless an emergency occurs.

  4. Headnote 4

    Section 2 provides a limited emergency exception, allowing a total of thirteen hours on a given day but only for three days per week.

  5. Headnote 5

    The Court emphasizes that the statute’s intent is safety, aiming to avoid fatigue that could impair the performance of duties related to train operations.

  6. Headnote 6

    The judgment affirming the $100 penalty and the courts’ construction of § 2 received appellate affirmation, demonstrating proper enforcement of the statutory provision.

  7. Headnote 7

    The statute authorizes a $100 civil penalty for employers who permit covered employees to exceed the nine‑hour limit.

  8. Headnote 8

    The factual record shows the employee’s duties involved telephonic communication of orders affecting train movements while stationed in a night‑and‑day facility, bringing him within the statutory prohibition.

  9. Headnote 9

    Section 2 of the Hours of Service Act forbids any employee who, while on duty in a tower, office, place, or station that is continuously operated night and day, uses the telegraph or telephone to dispatch, report, transmit, receive, or deliver orders affecting train movements from working more than nine hours in any twenty‑four‑hour period.

    The statute’s text expressly limits the duty hours of operators, train dispatchers, and other employees engaged in telegraphic or telephone communication concerning train movements when they work in continuously‑operated facilities.

  10. Headnote 10

    Switch‑tenders, although not titled dispatchers, perform telephonic communication that directly affects train movements, bringing them within the statutory prohibition.

  11. Headnote 11

    The nine‑hour limitation applies only when the employee’s work location is a tower, office, place, or station that is continuously operated night and day.

    Employees working in facilities that are not continuously operated are subject to a different (thirteen‑hour) limit, but those in continuously‑operated locations must not exceed nine hours.

  12. Headnote 12

    In an emergency the statutory ceiling may be extended by up to four additional hours on not more than three days in any week.

    The Act permits a limited extension of duty hours when an emergency arises, but absent such circumstances the nine‑hour limit is mandatory.

  13. Headnote 13

    The statute must be construed to further its purpose of promoting safety by preventing excessive mental and physical strain caused by prolonged work on exacting railroad tasks.

    Legislative intent guides interpretation; the Act seeks to protect train safety by limiting fatigue among employees whose duties affect train movements.

  14. Headnote 14

    The Court emphasizes adherence to the plain meaning of the Hours of Service Act, rejecting any attempt to narrow its reach based on job titles.

  15. Headnote 15

    The district court imposed, and the appellate court affirmed, a $100 penalty for permitting a switch‑tender to work twelve consecutive hours in violation of the Act.

  16. Headnote 16

    The lower courts properly applied the nine‑hour limitation to switch‑tenders and the Supreme Court affirmed that construction.

Opinion

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

Following its decisions in Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States, and Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. v. United States, 226 Fed. Rep. 27, 30, the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed á judgment of the District Court against petitioner for one hundred dollars, penalty for violating the Hours of Service Act (c. 2939, 34 Stat. 1415) by permitting a switch tender to remain on duty more than nine hours.

Section 2 of the act declares it unlawful for any interstaté; carrier by railroad to . require or permit an employee “ actually engaged in or connected with the movement of any train” to remain on duty longer than sixteen consecutive hours: “Provided, That no operator, train dispatcher, or other employee who by the use of the telegraph or .telephone dispatches, reports, transmits, receives, or delivers.orders pertaining to or affecting train movements shall be required or permitted to be or remain on duty for a longer period than nine hours in any twenty-four-hour period in all towers, offices, places, and stations continuously operated night and day, nor for a longer period than thirteen hours in all towers, offices, places, and stations operated only during the daytime, except in case of emergency, when the employees named in this proviso may be permitted to be'and remain on duty for four additional hours in a twenty-four-hour period on not exceeding three days in any week.”

The cause was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, a jury being waived.

Petitioner’s “Yard” at Bloomington, Illinois, is seven and thfee fourths miles long. During April., 1915, it maintained therein three switch shanties located upon its .double track main line, one five hundred feet, another eleven hundred feet and the third a mile north of its passenger station. Trains opérated over this portion of the fine are under control of the Yard Master and subject to a rule which provides; “all trains will reduce speed on passing through yard limits and proceed only, after the way is seen or known to be clear.” Each of these shanties was continuously operated night and day by two men, alternately on duty therein for twélve hours during every twenty-four. .

■ “All of the work regularly and generally required of said employees, as well as that required on the days mentioned in said declaration, was in connection with the use of certain switches and telephones, which said work pertained to and affected the movements of trains of defendant engaged in interstate commerce. Each of said shanties was equipped with a telephone, all three being on the same circuit, and connected with the Yard Master’s Office.” At the first shanty eight switches were handled; at the second twelve and two sets of cross-overs; at the third eight switches for south bound trains and a crossover one. “The work of these employees is to throw switches, relieve yard, train and engine crews of this, work, and to avoid delays t; trains moving through the yard. The telephones are used to permit the Yard Master, who directs all yard movements, to keep in closer touch with such movements and to issue instructions or orders to yard, train or engine crews as to the handling of cars or trains, or as to any other work that he may desire performed.” “The telephones at the three places were installed principally for the purpose of making more convenient-communication between the Yard Master’s Office and said shanties.”

“All instructions or orders received from the Yard Master, as above set forth, were always transmitted by said employees to the engine or trains crews, either verbally or by hand signals, and in no case were said employees required to write out said instructions or orders for transmission to these crews.” “None of the service required of any of said employees on the days mentioned in .said declaration was fiecessítated by reason of any emergency. They were the regular assigned hours of said employees, fixed in that manner by defendant’s operating department which acted under instructions received from its legal department.”

The purpose of the statute is to promote safety in operating trains by preventing the excessive mental and physical strain which usually results from remaining too long at an exacting task. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 221 U. S. 612, 619. It must be- construed and applied in view of that purpose and well known circumstances' attending the practical operation of trains.

The individuals within the ambit of the proviso’s pertinent provisions are marked by the nature of service performed — an “operator, train dispatcher, or other employee who by the use of the telegraph or telephone dispatches, reports, transmits, receives, or delivers orders pertaining to or affecting train movements.”. And the railroad is forbidden to permit one performing such service in “towers, offices, places, and stations continuously operated1 night and day” to remain on duty therein longer than nine hours in twenty-four. Both the post of 'duty and character of work are essential elements. If, in due course of his work, an employee while in any of the locations specified uses the telegraph or telephone for sending or receiving messages concerning train movements, he may not lawfully remain on duty therein exceeding nine hours during any twenty-four-hour period, except in case of emergency.

■Here, the facts disclose the switch tender oh duty for twelve consecutive hours in a shanty continuously operated night and day where, by the use of the telephone, he received and delivered orders pertaining to train movements — not mere switching movements within the yard; and in such service mental and physical alertness are of great importance. By permitting this the railroad vio-, lated both language and purpose of the act.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.