Bird v. Meadow Gold Products Corp.
| Decision Date | 11 June 1969 |
| Parties | , 73 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2100 Donald F. BIRD, Plaintiff, v. MEADOW GOLD PRODUCTS CORP. et al., Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
In this action, the plaintiff, a discharged employee sues his employers and representatives for alleged defamatory remarks made at a conference held pursuant to the collecive bargaining agreement between the employers and his union. The defendants move for summary judgment under CPLR 3212.
The plaintiff was a member of International Union of Operating Engineers. The agreement between said union and the Meadow Gold Corp. provides in paragraph 13 as follows:
'That any employee having a grievance shall have certain privileges--among these are:
If a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached between the parties either party may have the privilege of requesting arbitration before an arbitrator to be selected from a panel to be submitted by the New York Board of Mediation.
However, before any arbitration is requested, the union and employer shall first try to adjsut the matters between themselves.'
The only parties present at the conference were the plaintiff, his union representative, the president of Meadow Gold, who is also an officer of Beatrice Foods; two other officers of Meadow Gold; and the attorney for the employer. All were there in the common interest of considering and, if possible, adjusting the labor dispute or grievance.
At said conference, the plaintiff claims that the defendant, Holmes, stated 'Bird has been stealing from the Meadow Gold Company and we have positive proof.' He also states that the defendant, Reier, falsely and maliciously slandered him in the following words:
The matter was not settled at the conference.
The plaintiff having been denied reinstatement, the matter was referred to Herman A. Gray, designated as arbitrator by the New York State Board of Mediation, as provided in the contract.
A hearing was held before the Arbitrator on July 29th 1966. The employer submitted written and oral proof as to the discharge and of a misappropriation by the employee. The employee gave testimony as to the discharge but remained silent with respect to the alleged misappropriation (Arbitrator's award, pp. 5--6).
The arbitrator, after hearing the testimony, made the following award on August 8, 1966:
'1) That the employer had good cause for discharging Donald Bird and that such discharge should be and it is sustained.
2) Donald Bird having misappropriated money belonging to the employer became active in actions thereto which can only be explained reasonably as being devious and improper in purpose, the application made to reduce the penalty of discharge and to order his reinstatement should be and the same is denied.'
No motion was made by plaintiff to set aside the arbitration award on any of the many grounds provided therefor in CPLR 7511, in general, and subdivision (c), subd. 2 thereof in particular:
'The arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not submitted to them and the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the issue submitted.'
The award then came on for confirmation before Mr. Justice Brust in Supreme Court, New York County, on notice to the plaintiff, who appeared by counsel, and the learned justice granted the motion confirming the award in all respects. No appeal was taken from the order of Mr. Justice Brust.
To determine whether triable issues exist, the Court has reviewed all of the documents submitted on the motions for summary judgment, including the complaint, the answers, collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator's award and the order confirming it, as well as the memoranda of counsel. (Hamilton Printing Co. v. Payne, 26 A.D.2d 876, 273 N.Y.S.2d 929; 1136 Tenant's Corp. v. Rothenberg, 27 A.D.2d 830, 277 N.Y.S.2d 996, aff'd 21 N.Y.2d 995, 290 N.Y.S.2d 919, 238 N.E.2d 322).
The defamatory words having allegedly been uttered at a conference, initiated pursuant to a bargaining agreement, the court has made reference to both 29 U.S.C.A. Sec. 171, (Conciliation of Labor Disputes, effective June 23, 1947) and the New York State Labor Law, Consol. Laws, c. 31, Sec. 751, effective June 1, 1968, derived from former Sec. 750, laws of 1937, ch. 594) both dealing with public policy as to labor disputes to discover if the participants are protected by privilege, and if so whether the privilege is absolute or qualified.
Examination reveals that each of these statutes declares the public policy in its jurisdiction, in substantially the same language, i.e., that the best interests of the people are served by settlement of issues in labor disputes through the processes of conference, with the parties and their representatives participating.
United States courts are governed by Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 822, 82 L.Ed. 1188, where the United States Spreme Court stated, 'Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state.' Apparently there are no express provisions of Acts of Congress specifically governing defamation actions arising from statements made during the course of a labor grievance proceeding, nor prohibiting a State court from applying its own laws, where not inconsistent with national labor policies.
In a similar slander action (General Motors Corp. v. Mendicki, 367 F.2d 66 (1966) C.C.A. 10th Cir.) which originated in a labor dispute, the court stated at page 71:
'We think Congress intended that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Over-The-Road and City Transfer Drivers, Helpers, Dockmen and Warehousemen, Local Union No. 41, Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America
...Krasinski v. United Parcel Serv., 124 Ill.2d 483, 125 Ill.Dec. 310, 530 N.E.2d 468, 470-74 (1988); Bird v. Meadow Gold Prod. Corp., 60 Misc.2d 212, 302 N.Y.S.2d 701 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1969). Without the threat of perjury and in the absence of the factors previously deemed vital by the appellate co......
-
Ezekiel v. Jones Motor Co., Inc.
...R.R., 226 Md. 499, 174 A.2d 175 (1961). Jorgensen v. Pennsylvania R.R., 25 N.J. 541, 138 A.2d 24 (1958). Bird v. Meadow Gold Prods. Corp., 60 Misc.2d 212, 302 N.Y.S.2d 701 (1969). True v. Southern Ry., 159 S.C. 454, 157 S.E. 618 (1930). See Annot., 60 A.L.R.3d 1041, 1052 The defendants cont......
-
Johnson v. Hydraulic Research & Mfg. Co.
...(Compare General Motors Corporation v. Mendicki, 367 F.2d 66, 70--72 (10th Cir. 1966), with Bird v. Meadow Gold Products Corp., 60 Misc.2d 212, 302 N.Y.S.2d 701, 704--705 (S.Ct.1969); see Annot., 60 A.L.R.3d 1041.) Plaintiff introduced no evidence, in opposition to the motion for summary ju......
-
Fulghum v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
...made in the course of, and relevant to, a federal labor grievance proceeding. In the leading case of Bird v. Meadow Gold Products Corp., 60 Misc.2d 212, 302 N.Y.S.2d 701 (1969), a New York Supreme Court, looking both to New York law and to other state court decisions under the Railway Labor......