Anderson v. Tuomi
| Decision Date | 31 March 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 35140--1,35140--1 |
| Citation | 230 Minn. 490,42 N.W.2d 204,17 A.L.R.2d 744 |
| Parties | , 17 A.L.R.2d 744 ANDERSON v. TUOMI et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
1. Where collective bargaining agreement contained provision that it should continue in effect until March 31, 1949, and thereafter on a year-to-year basis, unless on or before 90 days prior to March 31 of any year written notice should be given by either party thereto demanding that the agreement be amended or terminated, and, in case of demand for amendment, with delivery of the proposed amendments in writing at least 30 days prior to such annual expiration date; and where one party to such agreement before the 90 days specified gave to the other written notice demanding amendments to the agreement and prior to the 30 days provided delivered the proposed amendments in writing; and where thereafter the parties thereto failed to reach an accord on such proposed amendments prior to such expiration date, Held that such agreement terminated on expiration date specified therein.
2. Where no collective bargaining agreement was in effect from date on which employes of plaintiff withdrew from his employ, such withdrawal, even though done as the result of concerted action, did not constitute an unfair labor practice under M.S.A. § 179.11(1), providing that it shall be an unfair labor practice for any employes or labor organization to institute a strike in violation of a valid collective agreement.
3. Where certain issues had arisen with respect to amendments in an agreement between an employer and a local labor organization acting on behalf of his employes; and where thereafter at a meeting called for such purpose, upon reasonable notice to all members of such labor organization of the time and place thereof, a strike vote was taken wherein a majority of the members of said organization voted in favor of such strike, Held that such acts and procedure were not in conflict with § 179.11(8), setting forth conditions under which strike votes shall be taken.
4. Where members of local labor organization delivered to employer written demands for amendments to contract under which they were employed within the period provided therefor by such agreement, and subsequently delivered proper and timely notices of intention to strike to such employer and to the labor conciliator, and did not thereafter terminate their employment later than 90 days from service of such notice upon conciliator, Held such procedure not in conflict with § 179.06, containing provisions relative to strike procedure.
5. An order denying a motion for amended findings or for additional findings and additional conclusions is not appealable.
William D. Gunn, St. Paul, for Elmer J. Tuomi and others.
D. A. Bourgin and William Kraker, Virginia, for Carl B. Anderson and others.
On August 26, 1949, the trial court made findings and conclusions and ordered judgment restraining defendants, and each of them, 'from in any way interfering with or preventing or encouraging any of the members of the Carpenters Local No. 1490 from going back to work for the plaintiff.' Subsequently, a writ of injunction to such effect was issued. This is an appeal from an order denying defendants' motion for a new trial.
On May 17, 1948, plaintiff and defendant Carpenters Local No. 1490 entered into a written contract containing the following provision:
On December 27, 1948, while said agreement was in effect, Local No. 1490, through its recording secretary, George Raihala, forwarded to plaintiff notice in the form of a letter, as follows:
'Virginia, Minn., Dec. 27 1948
'Carl B. Anderson
Anderson Homes
Virginia, Minn.
'Dear Sir:
'We would like to have our first meeting with you operators about March 1, 1949.
'Address your communication about suitable meeting time to--George Raihala Rec. Sec. Box 435, Aurora, Minn.
'Yours truly,
'George Raihala Rec. Sec.'
Pursuant to a resolution adopted at a meeting of Local No. 1490 in December 1948, a written notice was mailed to all members of said local advising them to be present at a special meeting thereof to be held on January 7, 1949, for the purpose of determining whether Local No. 1490 should authorize its representative to call a strike against the contractors in the Virginia area, of which plaintiff was one.
As the result of the strike vote taken at this meeting, it was determined by a vote of 36 to 13 that the representative of Local No. 1490 was authorized to call a strike, it being agreed that such vote would be of assistance to the representatives in new contract negotiations with the contractors. As stated by defendants' witness, an official of Local No. 1490:
Subsequently, on February 12, 1949, Local No. 1490 forwarded to plaintiff a second notice, as follows:
'Virginia, Minn., February 12 1949
'Anderson Homes Co.
215 So. 12th Street
Virginia, Minnesota
'Dear Sirs:
'In accordance with the agreement made with your firm on the 18th day of July 1947, please be referred to Article Two of the agreement of Local 1490 of Virginia, Minnesota. They have instructed me to inform you that Local 1490 wishes to open the contract for necessary changes and the adjustment of wages.
'Very truly yours,
'A. C. Viezbicke
Carpenters Local 1490
Recording Secretary.'
On February 16, 1949, and at least within 30 days prior to the next ensuing expiration date of the contract, as required by Article II thereof, Local No. 1490 sent to plaintiff and other contractors in Virginia a written list of the proposed amendments which Local No. 1490 requested before the contract of May 17, 1948, would be renewed, as follows:
'Feb. 16, 1949
'To the General Contractors Of Virginia, Minn.
'The following are the contract changes requested by the Virginia Carpenters Local #1490:
'1 Vacations at the rate of 5 cents per hour, to be paid into a Vacation fund to be administered by a joint committee of union and contractors.
'2 Subsistence pay at the rate of $3.00 per day for every day away from home, this to apply when carpenters cannot return to their homes each night.
'3 Transportation to be paid for by the Employer for all travel over five miles from City of Virginia limits at the rate of seven cents per mile, when driver carries extra passengers he shall receive seven cents per mile for each extra passenger carried.
'When transportation is supplied by Employer it shall be heated and covered for inclemente wheather (Sic).
'Time for one way travell (sic) at straight time shall be paid to all men travelling over five miles from City limits of Virginia
'4 Wage demands_ _30 cents per hour over present scale.
'Elmer J. Tuomi
Business Representative.'
Thereafter negotiations between Local No. 1490, plaintiff, and other contractors failed to lead to a new agreement by March 31, 1949. Members of Local No. 1490 continued working for plaintiff, however, and further negotiated with him in the hope that an agreement might be reached on the proposed changes. These negotiations failed, and on July 11, 1949, a strike notice was filed with the state labor conciliator and notice thereof given to plaintiff as required by M.S.A. § 179.06. As a result thereof, the labor conciliator conducted a hearing between the parties on July 22, 1949, in an attempt to effect a settlement of the dispute, at which all parties appeared. Notwithstanding the efforts of the conciliator and several subsequent conferences, the parties failed to arrive at an agreement.
On August 8, 1949, nine carpenters, all members of Local No. 1490, while on the job for plaintiff, were advised by their business representative and by the business representative of the Iron Range Building Trades Council, with while Local No. 1490 was affiliated, that plaintiff had not signed a contract with Local No. 1490, and that they were invited to a meeting at the city hall in Virginia at noon that day to determine whether or not they wished to continue working for plaintiff. These employes did not thereafter return to work for plaintiff, but obtained employment elsewhere, although plaintiff then stated that he would agree to most of the proposed changes in the old contract. He refused defendants' request to enter into a new contract with the Iron Range Building Trades Council, an association with which Local No. 1490 had then affiliated.
The trial court specifically found that no threats, intimidation, or coercion was used on such members of Local No. 1490 by their representatives, or by anyone else, although they were led to believe that it was the Local's desire that they cease working for plaintiff in the absence of a contract. In its findings the trial court determined:
'4. That on January 7, 1949, at a meeting duly called for that purpose of Local No. 1490 a motion was made and carried to authorize the union representative to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tynan v. KSTP, Inc.
...being within the period of the annual term of the agreement. 7 Both plaintiff and defendant have cited Anderson v. Tuomi, 230 Minn. 490, 42 N.W.2d 204, 17 A.L.R.2d 744. The trial court's decision there was based on the finding that there was a violation of an existing contract which constit......
-
Merz v. Oftedal, 40165
...v. Lenz, 212 Minn. 201, 203, 3 N.W.2d 10, 11; Raymond v. McKenzie, 220 Minn. 234, 239, 19 N.W.2d 423, 425; Anderson v. Tuomi, 230 Minn. 490, 505, 42 N.W.2d 204, 212, 17 A.L.R.2d 744; Physicians & Hospitals Supply Co. v. Johnson, 231 Minn. 548, 549, 44 N.W.2d 224, 225; Urbanski v. Merchants ......