Channell v. N. C. R. Emp. Independent Union
| Decision Date | 11 January 1971 |
| Parties | , 79 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2490, 67 Lab.Cas. P 12,345, 57 O.O.2d 379 CHANNELL, Appellee, v. N. C. R. EMPLOYEES' INDEPENDENT UNION et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Attorney fees may be allowed as compensatory damages to a union officer who has been unlawfully deprived of his office in a labor union by other officers and members.
2. In making an allowance of attorney fees as part of compensatory damages the court may consider the motives of the wrongdoers even though punitive damages are not involved.
Young, Pryor, Lynn, Strickland & Falke, Dayton, for appellee.
Goldman, Cole & Putnick and Paul H. Tobias, Cincinnati, for appellants.
This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment or order of the Court of Common Pleas on February 10, 1970, granting plaintiff's motion for attorney fees in the sum of.$5,150.00. A brief opinion of the trial court appears in 27 Ohio Misc. 42, 267 N.E.2d 432.
On November 16, 1967, judgment had been entered on the merits in these two consolidated cases. The combined decision 15 Ohio Misc. 103, 232 N.E.2d 667 and entry of the court at that time contained the following language:
'The court finds from the evidence that the recall of the plaintiff from his office of President of the NCR Employees' Independent Union by the National Executive Committee of said Union, the defendants herein, on July 11, 1967, was unwarranted, unauthorized, arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.
'The court has examined the Constitution and By Laws of the Union. Its terms and conditions having to do with 'Recall of Officers' is plain, explicit and unambiguous. The procedure employed by the defendants, which upon the record is not in dispute, in removing the plaintiff from his office was the usurpation of power by force as if by right.
'The merit of the charges made against the plaintiff resulting in his unlawful removal cease to be an issue.
'Inasmuch as the removal of the plaintiff was void and of no force and effect from the beginning the subsequent action taken with respect to the vote for reinstatement of the plaintiff, followed by the vote to reconsider the vote on reinstatement, is of little or no consequence, hence the issues thereby alluded to by the parties are not decisive of the rights of the plaintiff.
'Plaintiff has suffered irreparable injury and is without an adequate remedy at law.
'It is therefore Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed, that the defendants shall forthwith reinstate the plaintiff to his office as President of the NCR Employees' Independent Union, together with an the privileges and rights of said office.
'* * *
'Further it is Ordered that the defendant Union restore unto the plaintiff his salary as such President of said Union, retroactive to the date it was discontinued.'
While notices of appeal from that judgment were filed in both cases, apparently they were never pursued. There is no bill of exceptions on the merits, as heard prior to the judgment. Hence, it must be presumed that the court's findings were supported by the evidence.
The bill of exceptions which is now before us pertains only to the hearing which preceded the order for attorney fees presently appealed from. It contains a stipulation of counsel that the sum of $5,150 is a reasonable attorney fee, if one were to be allowed.
This bill of exceptions also contains evidence that at a regular membership meeting of the defendant union on September 12, 1967, a motion was passed by a substantial majority of those present (203 to 79) to pay the attorney fee. Defendant claims that there was not a quorum present at the time and that the meeting had already been adjourned. The judgment appealed from was not based upon that action.
Attorney fees, reasonably expended, may be allowed in proper cases as part of compensatory damages. They are not in the nature of punitive damages. 16 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 243, ff., Damages, Sections 108, 109, 110 and 111.
However, it is sometimes said (Sec. 110 i. d.), that if the case is such as to justify punitive damages, as, for example, when a defendant acts from malice, reasonable counsel fees may be considered part of compensatory damages. Perhaps as a result of such language, courts have sometimes considered the question of allowance of attorney fees in connection with the presence or absence of cause, such as malice, for punitive damages.
Since the nature of punitive damages is different from that of compensatory damages for legal fees reasonably expended, it may not be assumed that the test will be the same for both. Nevertheless, courts often consider the motives,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dolan v. City of Glouster1, Ohio
...{¶ 80} "[T]he nature of punitive damages is different from that of compensatory damages." See Channell v. N.C.R. Emp. Ind. Union, 28 Ohio App.2d 260, 263, 277 N.E.2d 85(2nd Dist. 1971). Punitive damages are intended to punish and deter behavior such as that exhibited by the party against wh......
- Hyer v. Velinoff
-
Sorin v. Board of Ed. of Warrensville Heights School Dist.
...(1859), 10 Ohio St. 277; Fortman v. Rottier (1858), 8 Ohio St. 548; Tomlinson v. Warner (1839), 9 Ohio 104; Channell v. N. C. R. Union (1971), 28 Ohio App.2d 260, 277 N.E.2d 85; and Stolberg v. Members of Bd. of Trustees for State College of Conn. (C.A.2, 1973), 474 F.2d In Roberts v. Mason......
-
Sorin v. Board of Educ., 887418
...restoration. Channell v. NCR Employees Independent Union, Ohio Com.Pl., 267 N.E.2d 432. As stated by the Court of Appeals, in 28 Ohio App.2d 260, 277 N.E.2d 85, in reviewing the aforementioned case, attorney fees reasonably expended may be allowes in a proper case as compensatory damages th......