Ensley v. Associated Terminals, Inc., 16.
| Decision Date | 24 February 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 16.,16. |
| Citation | 304 Mich. 522,8 N.W.2d 161 |
| Parties | ENSLEY v. ASSOCIATED TERMINALS, Inc. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Don Ensley, individually, and as assignee of Neil Uphof and others against Associated Terminals, Inc., on a minimum wage agreement between plaintiff's labor union and defendant. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.Appeal from Superior Court of Grand Rapids; Thaddeus B. Taylor, judge.
Before the Entire Bench.
Francis L. Williams and Williams, Stiles & Tubbs, all of Grand Rapids, for appellant.
Laurence D. Beukema, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.
Plaintiff Don Ensley and his assignors are truck drivers in the employ of defendant Associated Terminals, Inc., a nonprofit corporation engaged in the business of operating a truck freight terminal. These employees pick up outbound, and deliver inbound, shipments in the city of Grand Rapids, and are members of the ‘Truck Drivers Union, Local No. 406, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America.’
On February 19, 1940, the Union entered into a contract with defendant whose name was then Associated Truck Lines, Inc. This contract provided that city drivers should be paid at the rate of 5 cents per cwt. up to 3,000 lbs.; 4 cents per cwt. from 3,001 to 4,000 lbs.; 3 cents per cwt. from 4001 to 5,000 lbs.; and 2 1/2 cents per cwt. for all over 5,001 lbs., with a minimum of 25 cents per stop. The contract also provided for a rate of 65 cents per hour to be paid city drivers and a rider was attached to the contract, reading:
The contract was to cover the period from January 1st to December 31, 1940, and to continue in effect from year to year thereafter, unless modified by agreement upon 60 days's written notice prior to the annual date of expiration.
When the contract became effective, the city drivers were being paid on a sliding scale basis, and there was being deducted from the gross wages of each driver the sum of $20 a week to cover truck rentals. About February 25, 1940, defendant's employees were informed that the truck rental charge was changed from $20 to a deduction of 35 per cent of their gross weekly wages. The written contract does not mention truck rentals but provides that: ‘The Employer agrees that all conditions of employment relating to wages, hours of work, overtime differentials and general working conditions shall be maintained at not less than the highest minimum standards in effect at the time of the signing of this agreement and the conditions of employment shall be improved wherever specific provisions for improvement are made elsewhere in this agreement.’
Objections were made to this change but the deductions were continued without any satisfactory adjustment.
Plaintiff brought this action to recover the additional amounts deducted on the 35 per cent basis from his wages and those of his fellow employees during the year 1940. Defendant does not question plaintiff's right to bring the action as a third party beneficiary under this contract.
The trial judge, sitting without a jury, found that the ‘sliding rate’ and not the hourly rate was in effect during the period involved, and that the change made by defendant in the truck rental charge reduced the compensation due plaintiff and his assignors by $2,204.84. He held that there was an implied provision in the written contract fixing the charge of truck rentals at $20 a week, and that the increased deduction adversely affected the wage scale contrary to the provisions of the agreement. A judgment was entered in plaintiff's favor.
Defendant pleaded payment and contended at the trial that plaintiff and his assignors were estopped from asserting a claim for back wages because paychecks had been indorsed by them containing the following language: ‘Endorsement of this check constitutes receipt in full for wages to the end of the period shown on check stub.’ Defendant's claim of estoppel was properly denied because it was an affirmative defense and not pleaded. Nor is this question raised on appeal.
Defendant now contends on appeal that indorsement of these checks constituted a full settlement between the parties. The affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction was not pleaded, nor has defendant sought to amend its pleading. The defense of payment was pleaded; but that does not permit or include the defense of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mack v. City of Detroit
...330 N.W.2d 22 (1982); AFSCME v. Highland Park Bd. of Ed., 457 Mich. 74, 577 N.W.2d 79 (1998), overruling Ensley v. Associated Terminals, Inc, 304 Mich. 522, 8 N.W.2d 161 (1943); Haske v. Transport Leasing, Inc., 455 Mich. 628, 652, 566 N.W.2d 896 (1997), overruling Rea v. Regency Olds/Mazda......
-
American Federation of State, County and Mun. Employees, AFL-CIO, Michigan Council 25 and Local 1416 Highland Park School Dist. Bd. of Educ.
...p. 81, n. 3.9 We note that to the extent that this decision may be inconsistent with our prior decision in Ensley v. Associated Terminals, Inc., 304 Mich. 522, 8 N.W.2d 161 (1943), we expressly overrule it. Ensley was decided before the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.......
-
Hardaway Auto Owners Ins. Co., Intervenor v. Consolidated Paper Co.
...v. Wolverine Stockyards Co., 344 Mich. 207, 73 N.W.2d 902; Graham v. Thorman, 354 Mich. 629, 93 N.W.2d 264; Ensley v. Associated Terminals, Inc., 304 Mich. 522, 8 N.W.2d 161; Standard Oil Co. v. Riddell, 267 Mich. 375, 255 N.W. 212; Berston v. Gilbert, 180 Mich. 638, 147 N.W. 496; Randall v......
-
American Federation of State, County and Mun. Employees, AFL-CIO Michigan Council 25 v. Highland Park Bd. of Educ.
...Supreme Court case cited by defendant stated that an agreement to arbitrate does not prevent a suit at law. Ensley v. Associated Terminals, Inc., 304 Mich. 522, 8 N.W.2d 161 (1943). It held that the agreement must make an arbitration award a condition precedent by express terms in order to ......