Courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much farther both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go when only private interests are involved

—affirming that a court "cannot ignore the judgment of Congress, deliberately expressed in legislation

—we observed that the employees' freedom "to organize and to make choice of their representatives without the `coercive interference'and `pressure'of a company union... was continued and made more explicit by the amendment of 1934. "

It pointed out that the Act places a mandatory duty on the Railroad to treat with the Brotherhood as the exclusive representative of the employees in a craft, imposes heavy criminal penalties for willful failure to comply with its command, and provides that the majority of any craft shall have the right to determine who shall be the representative of the class for collective …

—observing that § 152, First is concerned with negotiations between an employer and the "authorized representative of its employees

On numerous occasions, this Court has recognized that the Railway Labor Act protects and promotes collective bargaining.

On the contrary, it is but a recognition that the jurisdiction conferred on the federal courts embraces suits in equity as well as at law, and that a federal court of equity, which may in an appropriate case refuse to give its special protection to private rights when the exercise of its jurisdiction would be prejudicial to the public interest

Defendants argue that a preliminary injunction in this case would override a constitutional amendment and the statutory policy of the legislature, which are themselves "declaration [s] of public interest and policy which should be persuasive."