Burkhart v. Mobil Oil Corp.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 102-81,102-81 |
| Citation | 143 Vt. 123,463 A.2d 226 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 114 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2671 Edward D. BURKHART v. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION. |
Richard E. Davis and Robert S. Burke of Richard E. Davis Associates, Inc., Barre, for plaintiff-appellee.
Austin B. Noble and Stephen C. Clancy of Gibson, Noble & Goodrich, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant.
Before BILLINGS, C.J., and HILL, UNDERWOOD, PECK and GIBSON, JJ.
This case involves the dismissal of an employee, the plaintiff, from his employment with Mobil Oil Corporation, the defendant. The former brought suit in Washington The facts are as follows. In 1956 the plaintiff was employed as a truck driver by the defendant in Brooklyn, New York. On September 9, 1962, the plaintiff voluntarily terminated his employment and moved to Vermont to help his father run the family poultry business. Ten months later, in July of 1963, he applied for work and was rehired by the defendant for its St. Johnsbury terminal. He worked there until 1974, when he was transferred to the defendant's Burlington terminal.
Superior Court against the latter for wrongful discharge. The jury, after a five day trial, returned a verdict for the plaintiff against the defendant, awarding him $150,000 in compensatory damages and $75,000 in punitive damages. From this adverse judgment, the defendant now appeals.
On May 16 and 17, 1977, the defendant put the plaintiff's work related activities under surveillance. Two of the defendant's employees followed the plaintiff on his daily delivery schedules. They alleged that they had observed him violating company policy and federal law by: (1) leaving his vehicle unattended while making product deliveries; (2) leaving the motor running on his vehicle while making gasoline deliveries; (3) dumping a substantial amount of regular gasoline in a premium tank; and (4) exceeding the posted speed limit several times. As a result of this, on May 19, 1977, the plaintiff was discharged.
At the time of his discharge, the plaintiff's employment was subject to the "Agreement between Northeast Region of Mobil Oil Corporation and Northern Oil Worker's Union." This agreement provided for a five step grievance and arbitration procedure, which states, in pertinent part, that:
Section 1. A grievance shall be defined as an alleged unjust discharge ....
Step 1--The aggrieved employee with his union representative, if he so elects, shall first present his grievance to his immediate supervisor ....
Step 2--Failing satisfactory settlement in Step 1, the employee or his union representative may ... submit the grievance in writing to the Terminal Superintendent ....
Step 3--Failing satisfactory settlement in Step 2, the employee or his union representative may submit the written grievance to the Manager of Plant Operations ....
Step 4--Failing satisfactory settlement in Step 3, the employee or his union representative may ... submit the written grievance to a Board of Review ....
Step 5--If the Board fails to arrive at a decision acceptable to both the Company and the Union, the Union may ... invoke arbitration by making demand on the Company with a copy of the American Arbitration Association....
On June 2, 1977, the plaintiff wrote a letter to his immediate supervisor, pursuant to Step 1 of the grievance and arbitration procedure. The supervisor denied the grievance, by letter dated June 6, 1977, and suggested that if the plaintiff wanted to pursue the grievance he should proceed to Step 2. However, the plaintiff never initiated Step 2. Instead, he filed the present action on May 9, 1978, claiming that he was wrongfully discharged in violation of his employment and collective bargaining agreements.
Prior to trial, the defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that the plaintiff's failure to exhaust the grievance and arbitration procedure precluded him from bringing suit for wrongful discharge. This motion was denied. Thereafter, following the close of the plaintiff's case and also following the close of its own case, the defendant moved for a directed verdict. On both occasions its motions were denied. After deliberation, the jury entered a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant then moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. This motion was denied, and the court entered a judgment on the verdict. The defendant appeals from this order.
On appeal, the defendant argues, inter alia, that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict or enter a judgment in the defendant's favor on the ground that the plaintiff was barred from bringing suit against the defendant for wrongful discharge because he failed to exhaust the grievance and arbitration procedure under the collective bargaining agreement. We agree and reverse.
The universally accepted rule holds that an employee subject to a collective bargaining agreement, who has a grievance within the scope of that agreement's grievance and arbitration procedure, must exhaust the remedies available under that agreement before he may maintain a suit against his employer. Clayton v. Automobile...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rich v. Montpelier Supervisory Dist.
...exhaust the remedies available under that agreement before he may maintain a suit against his employer." Burkhart v. Mobil Oil Corp., 143 Vt. 123, 126, 463 A.2d 226, 228 (1983); see also Morton v. Essex Town Sch. Dist., 140 Vt. 345, 348-49, 443 A.2d 447, 449 (1981) (teacher obligated to pur......
-
Furno v. Pignona, 84-153
...must exhaust the remedies available under that agreement before he may maintain a suit against his employer. Burkhart v. Mobil Oil Corp., 143 Vt. 123, 126, 463 A.2d 226, 228 (1983); see also Morton v. Essex Town School District, 140 Vt. 345, 348-49, 443 A.2d 447, 449 Nevertheless, a recogni......
-
Ploof v. Village of Enosburg Falls
...842 (1967); Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U.S. 650, 652, 85 S.Ct. 614, 616, 13 L.Ed.2d 580 (1965); Burkhart v. Mobil Oil Corp. 143 Vt. 123, 126, 463 A.2d 226, 228 (1983); Morton v. Essex Town School District, 140 Vt. 345, 349, 443 A.2d 447, 449 (1982). This requirement does not apply,......
-
Lew v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1
...2091, 68 L.Ed.2d 538 (1981); Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 184, 87 S.Ct. 903, 913-14, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967); Burkhart v. Mobil Oil Corp., 143 Vt. 123, 126, 463 A.2d 226, 228 (1983). However, federal and state courts have held that an employee's failure to exhaust contractual grievance proced......