HAMILTON FOUNDRY & M. CO. v. INTERNATIONAL M. & F. WKRS.

• Decision Date: 08 January 1951
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 2075.
• Citation: 95 F. Supp. 35
• Parties: HAMILTON FOUNDRY & MACH. CO v. INTERNATIONAL MOLDERS & FOUNDRY WORKERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA (A. F. OF L.) et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

95 F. Supp. 35

HAMILTON FOUNDRY & MACH. CO v. INTERNATIONAL MOLDERS & FOUNDRY WORKERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA (A. F. OF L.) et al.

Civ. No. 2075.

United States District Court S. D. Ohio, W. D.

January 8, 1951.

Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Long & Bloom and Robert A. Wilson, all of Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant.

DRUFFEL, District Judge.

Both defendants have moved for a new trial and for final judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the jury awarding plaintiff $37,500.00 as damages for a breach of a claimed partial written and partial oral collective bargaining agreement.

The action was commenced by plaintiff for breach of a no-strike clause following the commencement of a strike called by Local 68. Defendants deny the existence of a contract at the time of calling the strike and the defendant, the International Union, further contends that both plaintiff and Local 68 knew that it was not to be a party to the contract then under discussion.

From the testimony it appears that prior to the commencement of this action plaintiff and Local 68 had a bargaining history for more than ten years and written agreements were entered into annually. Section XI-a of the last contract provided: "this agreement shall continue in effect until February 28, 1949, and for each succeeding year thereafter, unless either party to this agreement gives sixty days written notice previous to the expiration date."

Pursuant to written notice negotiations for a 1949 agreement were begun and a total of five bargaining meetings had between plaintiff and a committee representing Local 68, the final meeting being held March 24, 1949. Up to this time a portion of the foundry had been operating on day work rates and a portion on a piece work basis and in the new contract the company proposed that the entire plant be placed on a piece work basis with a few minor exceptions.

This was the principal bone of contention in Local 68. As an inducement the company offered an increase of five cents an hour plus some other minor concessions. At the conclusion of the meeting March 24th, plaintiff delivered to the committee representing Local 68 a written proposal outlining the various rates of pay and terms and conditions of employment. The proposal was signed:

"The Hamilton Foundry & Machine Co.

By (Signed) Peter E. Rentschler Peter E. Rentschler, President"

and space provided for other signatures as follows:

"Local No. 68, International Molders &amp Foundry Workers Union of North America By __________ Robert Harding, Jr __________ Carl Fatika ___________ Pliney Dudley ___________ Ray Bannon ___________ E. R. Mitchell ___________ M. D. McCune, District Representative, I.M. & F.W.U of N. A."

The written proposal followed the pattern of the previous annual agreements existing between plaintiff and Local 68. Among other conditions therein, Section I (A-6) reads:

"To Put Into Effect the Day Work Rates * * *

"It is understood that upon the signing of this agreement the existing individual day work rates of each employee shall be increased five cents per hour effective March 28, 1949."

The committee agreed to present this written proposal to a meeting of employees of plaintiff who were members of Local 68 for discussion and a recommendation to Local 68 as a whole, at its regular meeting the following Monday night, March 28, 1949. Local 68 was made up of employees of approximately seven foundries operating in and about Hamilton including employees of plaintiff company.

At the conclusion of the final bargaining meeting M. D. McCune, one of the committeemen agreed to telephone Mr. McDaniel, plaintiff's vice president, the following day as to what recommendations, if any, were to be made by plaintiff's employees to the regular meeting of Local 68 the following Monday.

The importance of the telephone report was to advise plaintiff whether the men would report on Monday for work so as to give plaintiff sufficient time to affix piece-work price tags to each of the various operations, so that the workmen would know exactly how much they were being paid for each job.

From this point on the testimony is in conflict. To support plaintiff's claim that an oral contract was made, Donald McDaniel, Vice President of plaintiff, testified that McCune phoned him Saturday, March 26, 1949, that at the employees' meeting Friday night they had agreed to the proposal that plaintiff had made them on Thursday; that he asked McCune whether he had much trouble doing it, and McCune said "Well, it wasn't easy."

From the foregoing telephone conversation, assuming McDaniel's version was true, plaintiff contends that the jury could and did find that the defendants became bound to an agreement with the plaintiff on Saturday morning, March 26th without any further action on the part of Local 68 or the International.

For the defendants, Chester Sample, President of the International, testified that the International had no authority with reference to contracts made by local unions, except that they cannot call strikes unless the International has previously sanctioned them; that he entered negotiations for the first time March 24th at the invitation of the shop committee of the Hamilton Foundry after they advised they were unable to reach an agreement with plaintiff; that at the conclusion of the meeting he agreed to attend the Friday night meeting of the employees of plaintiff company; that he together with the other members of the committee did go to the meeting and tried to point out to the employees the position taken by the firm in regard to the time study or piecework plan; that that was the main question, and the principal obstacle to the men going along; that plaintiff's employees had previously opposed this system, and that he had endeavored to get them to decide again whether they would work under it or not; that they very strenuously objected to it and were not going to vote on it again; that after this they began to talk about putting into effect a previously granted sanction permitting Local 68 to call a strike. Chester Sample further testified "I advised them not to be in any hurry about striking, and I told them that I thought they ought to stay at work and give the committee a further opportunity of meeting the company and trying to work out an agreement * * * and they then decided by vote to continue to work for a week * * * to give the committee an opportunity to work out an agreement.

"I then attended the meeting of Local 68, Monday, March 28th and there the committee and officers made a report to the local union as to the negotiations; what action the membership had taken on Friday night, and the local union approved of that action * * * of staying at work for a week and seeing if something would develop that we would be able to work out an agreement with the company." (Record, pages 179, 182.)

Merlin D. McCune, District Representative of the Miami Valley Conference Board comprising sixteen locals and a member of the negotiation committee, testified among other things, that: following the meeting of March 24th he together with the other members of the Shop Committee went to the meeting of plaintiff's employees and presented plaintiff's written proposal to the group; that he and the other members of the committee recommended its acceptance and upon discussion of a motion to approve: "Everything blew up. All the members got up and tried to talk at one time and positively refused to vote on the question. And later the motion was withdrawn to vote to accept or reject the company's proposal;" that the following day, Saturday, March 26th, he phoned plaintiff's Vice President McDaniel to report as per arrangement of the 24th. "McDaniel asked: `How did you make out last night?' I said `Not so good.' He said, `What do you mean?' I said, `Well, they voted last night not to put the strike sanction in effect.' He said, `Well, what does that mean?' I said, `I suppose it means if you put the proposition in effect they're going to work under it. If you're fair about it and you're going to do as you stated throughout our negotiations that there probably won't be any trouble and we'll be able to sign the agreement on Wednesday.'" (Record, page 216.)

And by way of further explanation Mr. McCune testified:

"A. We felt sure that if they went to work on Monday that the plan would be put into effect, and under the new system —

"Q. Now, by plan, you mean the time-study plan? A. The time-study plan would be put into effect.

"Q. All right. A. We felt that if they worked under it a while and if there were no difficulties and it was fair and they didn't intend to cut the wages, that the men would be agreeable and we would be able to sign the agreement on Wednesday. But when they tried it on Monday, that's when things broke loose.

"Q. Now then, what broke loose? What happened? A. Well, they started to work on Monday. After receiving the cards and the time study they started to work. They seen where the number of molds that they had to make in a certain day * * *. The jobs were cut as high as 30 per cent — or the jobs were added that much. * * *." (Record, pages 217, 219.)

Robert Harding also testified for defendants among other things as follows: that he was a member of the bargaining committee of Local 68; that when their committee was unable to reach an agreement with plaintiff the Local invited Mr. Sample and McCune to assist; that he presided at the Friday night meeting of the employees of plaintiff; that a motion was made to accept the company's proposal and during the discussion on it "there was such a turmoil in the meeting * * * they refused to vote on it and the man who made the motion withdrew it;" that at the regular meeting of Local 68 the following Monday night the Committee reported the result of the Friday meeting turning down the company's proposal and also to withhold the strike sanction, "and the Local went...