Bunker Hill Co. v. United Steelworkers of America
| Decision Date | 05 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 14945,14945 |
| Citation | 686 P.2d 835,107 Idaho 155 |
| Parties | , 120 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2499, 117 Lab.Cas. P 56,525 The BUNKER HILL COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA and Its Local 7854, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Wayne P. Fuller, Caldwell, for defendants-appellants.
William F. Boyd, Kellogg, for plaintiff-respondent.
On August 25, 1981, the Bunker Hill Company announced that it was ceasing its mining operations in the Kellogg area. Initially, employees were merely laid-off, as the company was making an effort to sell the mine as a going concern. It eventually became clear however, that the mine would not be sold, and by July, 1982, almost the entire work force had been terminated.
Bunker Hill and the Union were at that time parties to a labor-management contract which was not due to expire for another year, and after the announced shut-down, the Union demanded to bargain about the effects of the mine closure upon the rights of the employees. The issues involved concerned the amount of pension benefits, severance pay, and the company's obligation to continue medical and other insurance benefits. Before an agreement was reached however, three Union members filed a class action suit against Bunker Hill in United States District Court for the District of Idaho. At issue in that suit, Chilson v. The Bunker Hill Company, 722 F.2d 744 (9th Cir.1983) was, inter alia, the validity of the method of the company's termination of the employees. The three plaintiff union members were represented by Daniel McIntyre, Assistant General Counsel of the United Steelworkers, and Wayne Fuller, counsel for the Union in this case.
On July 14, 1982, shortly after the Chilson suit was brought, Bunker Hill and the Union reached an agreement in their negotiations, which was formalized on July 22nd. One of its provisions consisted of a promise by the Union that it would "withdraw the grievance over the termination." The only grievance pending then, as well as now, was the Chilson lawsuit. The Union admits that it represented in negotiations that it would seek dismissal of the federal suit. According to Daniel McIntyre:
At the July 14th meeting, as the parties neared the end of their bargaining, Mr. Boyd [attorney for Bunker Hill] asked me whether I would agree to withdraw the participant's action against Bunker Hill if the Company agreed to the settlement which was being considered. I responded that I was willing to move for dismissal and noted that, since the action was a class action, the district court had to determine the appropriateness of the dismissal. Mr. Boyd said that was acceptable. Affidavit of Daniel P. McIntyre, at 3-4, Clerk's Record at 53-54.
On the same day the agreement was formalized, Jack Kendrick, Bunker Hill's president, wrote to the Union representative, William Thompson, stating that the agreement was signed with the understanding that it would have the effect of "resolving all pending grievances, unfair labor charges and employee lawsuits." Thompson responded by affirming the settlement and stating that the lawsuit was "to be resolved between the attorneys." The Union attorneys subsequently refused to move to dismiss the Chilson suit, and Bunker Hill consequently refused to implement the terms of the settlement agreement.
Bunker Hill did however, express a desire to submit the settlement agreement to each individual employee....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhodes v. Sunshine Min. Co.
...affidavits have been construed in a light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Bunker Hill Company v. United Steelworkers of America, 107 Idaho 155, 686 P.2d 835 (1984); Meridian Bowling Lanes, Inc. v. Meridian Athletic Association, 105 Idaho 509, 670 P.2d 1294 (1983); Far......
-
Mascaro v. Davis
...1982) (and cases cited therein); see Bambrough v. Bethers, 552 P.2d 1286, 1290 (Utah 1976).12 Bunker Hill Co. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 107 Idaho 155, 157, 686 P.2d 835, 837 (1984); Aritex Land Co. v. Baker, 14 Ariz.App. 266, 275, 482 P.2d 875, 884 (1971); In re Massapequa in Town of O......
-
Suitts v. First Sec. Bank of Idaho, N.A.
...Mitchell, supra. See also, Anderson v. City of Pocatello, 112 Idaho 176, 731 P.2d 171 (1986); Bunker Hill Co. v. United Steelworkers of America, 107 Idaho 155, 686 P.2d 835 (1984). Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) states that, "When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as ......
-
State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Doe
...is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Bunker Hill Co. v. United Steelworkers of America, 107 Idaho 155, 686 P.2d 835 (1984). A motion for summary judgment must be denied if reasonable people could reach differing conclusions or......