Adams v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO

• Decision Date: 09 February 1982
• Docket Number: No. 13210,No. 178-A,AFL-CIO and L,178-A,13210
• Parties: , 114 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2285, 95 Lab.Cas. P 55,375 Dan A. ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,ocalUnited Steelworkers of America, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Page 475

640 P.2d 475

97 N.M. 369, 114 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2285, 95 Lab.Cas. P 55,375

Dan A. ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO and Local No. 178-A

United Steelworkers of America,

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 13210.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Feb. 9, 1982.

Kool, Kool, Bloomfield & Hollis, John L. Hollis, Albuquerque, Rudolph L. Milasich, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., Bernard Kleiman, Chicago, Ill., for appellants

McCormick & Forbes, John M. Caraway, Carlsbad, for appellee.

OPINION

EASLEY, Chief Justice

Adams sued National Potash Company (Company), United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO and its Local 178-A (Union). The Company was dismissed from the case on stipulation by Adams. The jury returned a verdict for $7,500 in favor of Adams against the Union which was appealed. We reverse.

We discuss:

1. Whether there was neither evidence nor inference from which a jury could have found that Adams was wrongfully discharged, thus warranting a judgment for the Union notwithstanding the verdict.

2. Whether Adams' stipulated dismissal of the Company precluded his claims against the Union based on theories of res judicata or collateral estoppel.

3. Whether the jury was properly instructed on damages, the elements of unfair representation and deposition testimony.

4. Whether the trial judge abused his discretion by not submitting special interrogatories to the jury.

5. Whether certain evidence on Adams' work record should have been admitted.

Adams, while working for the Company, had a confrontation with his foreman. There is some dispute whether Adams violated the Company's Work Rule No. 16 by refusing to follow a reasonable order given by the foreman. The Company discharged Adams for insubordination.

With the assistance of the Union, Adams filed a grievance for wrongful discharge, and claimed he had not been given a direct order and that if an order had been given, it was not reasonable. The grievance was properly processed through the first three steps of a contractual grievance procedure. Step four called for the Union to respond to the Company's written position within fifteen days. Final authority to decide whether a grievance would be arbitrated was vested in the Union's staff representative, Hollan Cornett. However, the new Local President took no note of the impending deadline. He mistakenly believed that a membership vote was necessary before a grievance could be appealed to arbitration and delayed voting until the next regular meeting which was held past the fifteen-day deadline. The members then voted to send the grievance to arbitration.

Staff Representative Cornett, an experienced paid Union employee, testified that he also did not notice the time limit had passed, and that he had already determined that the grievance did not merit arbitration. Since the response of the Union was untimely filed, the Company refused to arbitrate.

Adams filed a complaint against both the Company and the Union. He sued the Company under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (1976), alleging that the Company breached the collective bargaining agreement because it discharged him without just cause. Adams later stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice of the claims against the Company. The Union was sued under Sections 7 and 9 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 157, 159 (1976), for breach of their federal duty of fair representation based on the missed time limit which precluded arbitration on the merits of Adams' grievance.

A state district court has jurisdiction to decide this federal question based on federal statutory and case law. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967). We must apply federal substantive law but state procedural law.

1. Evidence of Wrongful Discharge.

The Union claims there is no evidence or inference of wrongful discharge to support the jury's verdict and that the court erred in refusing to grant judgment NOV.

Adams was properly discharged under the collective bargaining agreement if he was guilty of insubordination, which is a deliberate and willful refusal by an employee to comply with a proper request or demand. There was conflicting evidence at trial concerning whether the foreman gave Adams a direct order which Adams deliberately disobeyed. Both sides called witnesses and cross-examined them; thus, the jury had ample opportunity to hear and evaluate the evidence. From this evidence the jury necessarily determined the credibility of the witnesses, reconciled inconsistent testimony and decided the truth. Worthey v. Sedillo Title Guaranty, Inc., 85 N.M. 339, 512 P.2d 667 (1973).

In considering a motion to grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict, this Court has always considered the testimony in a light most favorable to the prevailing party. Montoya v. General Motors Corporation, 88 N.M. 583, 544 P.2d 723 (Ct.App.1975), cert. denied, 89 N.M. 6, 546 P.2d 71 (1976). This evidence, together with the inferences that may be drawn therefrom, is accepted as true, and all evidence to the contrary is disregarded. Scott v. McWood Corporation, 82 N.M. 776, 487 P.2d 478 (1971); Miera v. George, 55 N.M. 535, 237 P.2d 102 (1951). All the evidence must be reviewed, but, if there be conflicts or contradictions in the evidence, those conflicts must be resolved in favor of Adams, who is the non-moving party. Skyhook Corp. v. Jasper, 90 N.M. 143, 560 P.2d 934 (1977). We should be able to say that there is neither evidence nor inference from which the jury could have arrived at its verdict. Townsend v. United States Rubber Company, 74 N.M. 206, 392 P.2d 404 (1964).

After thoroughly searching this record and considering the testimony in the light most favorable to Adams, we find there was substantial evidence that he was wrongfully discharged. If we accept Adams' testimony as true, there is both evidence and inferences from which the jury could have arrived at its verdict. Inconsistencies between his evidence and the evidence presented by the Union were resolved by the jury. Since the jury obviously believed Adams, they acted reasonably in finding he was wrongfully discharged. We affirm the trial court as to this issue.

2. Whether Dismissal of Company Bars Adams' Claim.

Adams agreed to a dismissal with prejudice of all his claims against the Company. The trial judge instructed the jury that they must find both that Adams was wrongfully discharged and that the Union breached its duty to fairly represent him. The Union asserts that the dismissal bars any action against it because of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

To apply the doctrine of res judicata, the second suit must be identical with the first suit in four respects: There must be identity of (1) subject matter, (2) cause of action, (3) persons and parties and (4) capacity or character of the persons for or against whom the claim is made. Torres v. Village of Capitan, 92 N.M. 64, 582 P.2d 1277 (1978); City of Santa Fe v. Velarde, 90 N.M. 444, 564 P.2d 1326 (1977); Adams v. Cox, 55 N.M. 444, 234 P.2d 1043 (1951).

Adams sued the Union, charging it with a breach of its duty of fair representation. This duty does not stem from a collective bargaining agreement but arises out of Sections 8(b) and 9(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(b), 159(a) (1976). Smith v. Local No. 25, Sheet Metal Workers Int. Ass'n, 500 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1974). Even if both the wrongful discharge suit and the breach of duty suit were construed as involving essentially the same course of wrongful conduct, this does not indicate that both suits arise from a single cause of action. City of Santa Fe v. Velarde, supra.

Adams alleged separate causes of action against the Union and the Company. Although the Company precipitated both causes of action when it discharged Adams, the Company and the Union did not engage in one united course of wrongful behavior, nor are the issues identical between Adams and the two defendants. Thus, Adams is not precluded by application of res judicata from pursuing his claim against the Union.

Collateral estoppel, or "issue preclusion", is an entirely distinct concept, which does not require that both suits be based on the same cause of action. Torres v. Village of Capitan, supra; City of Santa Fe v. Velarde, supra. The purpose of collateral estoppel is to aid in the finality of judgments by preventing parties from endlessly relitigating the same issues under the guise of different causes of action. Collateral estoppel bars relitigation, as between parties or their privies, of ultimate facts or issues actually and necessarily decided in a prior suit. See Torres v. Village of Capitan, supra.

As between Adams and the Company, it was actually and necessarily determined that Adams was not wrongfully discharged. Whether this bars relitigation of the issue of wrongful discharge between Adams and the Union depends on whether the Union was a party or privy in the dismissed cause of action. Dismissal with prejudice constitutes a complete adjudication of the merits. See Chalmers v. Hughes, 83 N.M. 314, 491 P.2d 531 (1971).

The fact that the Union was originally joined in the complaint with the Company as a party-defendant is not sufficient to make the Union privy to the Company. See Phillips v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n, 91 N.M. 325, 573 P.2d 680 (Ct.App.1977). Persons interested in the same question or in proving the same facts are not privies. 1 A. C. Freeman, A Treatise of the Law of Judgments § 438 (1925). Nor does a final judgment entered against an individual defendant bar Adams from further action against another defendant. Montano v. Williams, 89 N.M. 86, 547 P.2d 569 (Ct.App.), aff'd, 89 N.M. 252, 550 P.2d 264 (1976).

The doctrine of collateral estoppel is not intended to tie the hands of judges. Torres v. Village of Capitan, supra. When all the elements of collateral estoppel are met, the doctrine may not...