Ackerman v. Globe-Democrat Pub. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,GLOBE-DEMOCRAT,No. 49308,49308,1 |
| Citation | 368 S.W.2d 469 |
| Parties | 52 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2848, 53 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2499, 47 Lab.Cas. P 50,788 Meyer ACKERMAN et al., Respondents, v.PUBLISHING COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Hocker, Goodwin & MacGreevy, Lon Hocker, St. Louis, for appellant.
Bartley & Bartley, Malcolm L. Bartley, Donald S. Siegel, St. Louis, for respondents.
HOUSER, Commissioner.
This is an action by 154 members of St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8 against Globe-Democrat Publishing Company, a corporation, which is engaged in the business of publishing a daily newspaper in St. Louis known as the 'St. Louis Globe-Democrat,' for severance pay under a collective bargaining contract. A jury in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis returned a verdict for plaintiffs for $234,707.80 plus interest. Judgment was rendered accordingly. Defendant appealed.
The union, an unincorporated labor organization, was the designated and recognized sole bargaining agent of all Globe-Democrat employees engaged in composing room work. The union and the corporate publisher will be referred to as 'Union' and 'Globe-Democrat.'
On June 17, 1958 Union and St. Louis Newspaper Publishers' Association (consisting of the two corporations which publish the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the St. Louis Globe-Democrat) entered into a written collective bargaining agreement for the period January 1, 1958 to December 31, 1959, providing the hours, wages and other terms and conditions of employment of plaintiffs by Globe-Democrat.
We have italicized the portion of the article of the agreement which forms the contractual basis of this action:
'1. Situation holders laid off to reduce the force shall receive severance pay of one week's pay for each year of continuous priority.
'2. In the event of merger, consolidation or permanent suspension of publication by any newspaper covered by this contract, all employes who lose employment thereby shall receive severance pay as follows:
'Employes having six months priority standing, six (6) weeks' pay.
'Employes having one year or more priority standing, twelve (12) weeks' pay.
On February 21, 1959 the St. Louis Newspaper Guild, a union not affiliated with the typographical union, struck against Globe-Democrat and established a picket line. Plaintiffs, typographical union members, who had been working at Globe-Democrat on various shifts, and all other mechanical craft employees, refused to cross the Guild picket line. By a provision of the contract each of these plaintiffs had a right to refuse to cross the picket line without being disciplined therefor, but without payment for time lost. The publisher of the Globe-Democrat that day sent a letter to all employees saying
About 3 o'clock a. m. on February 22 the Globe-Democrat delivered a letter to the Union president saying: On February 27, 1959 Globe-Democrat sold its building, printing plant, machinery, equipment and other personal property to Pulitzer Publishing Company, publishers of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, under an agreement by which Pulitzer agreed to print the Globe-Democrat for ten years from February 27, 1959, beginning the date the Globe-Democrat was prepared to resume publication following settlement of the then-existing strike of its Guild employees. This agreement provided, among other things, that 'both parties are desirous of retaining their separate identities and their separate news, advertising, circulation and editorial policies' so as to present to the public more than one coverage and opinion of public affairs by two independent newspapers. Pulitzer agreed to pay all printing expenses from the point where the copy was received to delivery of the printed newspapers at the truck side of the loading dock, where Globe-Democrat would accept and be responsible for their delivery. Globe-Democrat was to maintain in its own separate quarters its own business, advertising, circulation, news and editorial departments and pay all expenses up to delivery of the material for printing and all expenses of delivery of newspapers from the loading dock. Globe-Democrat was to be responsible for all wages or other obligations incurred prior to date Pulitzer began printing the Globe-Democrat and Pulitzer was to be liable only for wages, etc. incurred in the printing of the Globe-Democrat after said date. Pulitzer agreed to employ any additional persons it might need to print the Globe-Democrat 'from the present employees of Globe-Democrat Publishing Company if available, but shall not be obligated to employ any of the [said employees] whose services are not actually needed by it.'
On the same day the publisher of Globe-Democrat sent a letter to all its employees, saying in part:
'To effect greater economy and efficiency in mechanical operation, The Globe-Democrat today entered into an agreement with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch under which the Globe-Democrat will be printed by the Post-Dispatch, when and if the Guild strike is settled.
* * *
* * *
None of plaintiffs performed any work for, received any compensation from, or were called back to work by Globe-Democrat after February 27, 1959. All plaintiffs were on the last priority (seniority) list made up in February, 1959, which showed when each member of Union became an employee of Globe-Democrat. Union had another group of members (called a 'chapel') in the composing room of the Post-Dispatch. None of plaintiffs' names appeared on the priority list at the Post-Dispatch chapel as of February 27, 1959. A member of Local 8 in the employment of the Globe-Democrat could not have priority with more than one newspaper at the same time, and if an employee lost priority standing at Globe-Democrat and took a job at some other newspaper his priority would begin as of the date of his employment by the second employer and his priority prior to February 27, 1959 was lost. Those plaintiffs hired by Post-Dispatch after February 27, 1959 were given situations in their priority at the bottom of the Post-Dispatch priority list. The president of Union testified that at a meeting on February 27, 1959 called by the publisher of Globe-Democrat, attended by representatives of the mechanical craft unions, the publisher announced the sale of Globe-Democrat's printing equipment to Pulitzer and that Globe-Democrat would no longer need the services of the members of the various mechanical unions, and that Post-Dispatch would hire what they needed of the former Globe-Democrat employees 'and those who were not employed by the Post-Dispatch would receive severance pay.'
Certain alleged admissions by Globe-Democrat, by way of pleading in the several lawsuits involving the various mechanical crafts unions, were read in evidence. By these pleadings Globe-Democrat admitted that it gave notice that there had been a merger of mechanical operations of the two newspapers; that it gave notice that the mechanical operations of the two companies were consolidated and merged and operated solely and exclusively by and under control of Pulitzer; that there had been a discontinuance of mechanical operations by Globe-Democrat. In its answer in Irwin v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Company, Mo., 368 S.W.2d 452 before this Court, Globe-Democrat construed the arrangement between Globe-Democrat and Pulitzer as a merger or a consolidation of the mechanical functions of the two publishers. Globe-Democrat also admitted in a pleading that the Globe-Democrat gave notice to plaintiffs and their union representatives of the discharge of plaintiffs and the suspension of the printing of the newspaper by Globe-Democrat. Since February 27, 1959 Globe-Democrat has not owned the building where, or the equipment on which, plaintiffs performed their accustomed work, and has had no contractual right to use presses, printing equipment and auxiliary facilities with which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Of Mo. v. Osborn
...were not raised or made in their briefs.” State v. Oliver, 520 S.W.2d 99, 101-02 (Mo.App.1975) (citing Ackerman v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Co., 368 S.W.2d 469, 480(12) (Mo.1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 949, 84 S.Ct. 353, 11 L.Ed.2d 276 (1963)). The State's motion is denied. 1. All referen......
-
School Dist. of Springfield R-12, ex rel. Midland Paving Co. v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
...merely reargue matters considered in the opinion filed. Such reargument of issues must be disregarded. Ackerman v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Company, 368 S.W.2d 469, 481(13) (Mo.1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 949, 84 S.Ct. 353, 11 L.Ed.2d 276 (1963); Thompson v. Gray, 415 S.W.2d 299, 307(11) ......
-
Willman v. Beheler
... ... on the ground that this is what the parties actually agreed to orally. As stated in Ackerman v. Globe-Democrat ... Publishing Co., 368 S.W.2d 469, 479 (Mo.1963), however, '(w)e cannot decide ... ...
-
ST. LOUIS MAILERS'UNION LOCAL NO. 3 v. Globe-Democrat Pub. Co.
...84 S.Ct. 198, 11 L.Ed. 2d 147; Allen v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Co., 368 S.W.2d 460 (Mo.Sup. 1963); and Ackerman v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Co., 368 S.W.2d 469 (Mo.Sup. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 949, 84 S.Ct. 353, 11 L.Ed.2d 276. In each of those appeals the union members' respective......