Florestano v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1936 |
| Docket Number | 30,921 |
| Citation | 269 N.W. 407,198 Minn. 203 |
| Parties | ANGELO FLORESTANO v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover damages for loss of seniority rights sustained by plaintiff, an employe of defendant, by reason of the alleged breach of a contract of employment negotiated with defendant by an association of railway employes. The case was tried before Bert Fesler, Judge, and a jury. At the close of plaintiff's case the court directed a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment. Affirmed.
Master and servant -- contract of employment -- breach -- construction.
In this action by an employe of defendant for damages for breach of the contract of employment made in his behalf by the Shop Craft organization, the court did not err in granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict because of lack of proof of a breach.
Jaques & Hudson, L. M. Hatlestad, and Fred Ossanna, for appellant.
D. F Lyons, Frederic D. McCarthy, Mitchell, Gillette, Nye & Harries, and W. O. Bissonett, for respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from an adverse judgment entered upon a directed verdict.
The action is for damages for wrongfully depriving plaintiff of his seniority rights as an employe of defendant. Plaintiff claims seniority rights under his employment contract negotiated, in October, 1923, with defendant, by an association of the railway employes called the Shop Craft. This contract was for the benefit of all railway employes of defendant. It is a very specific and comprehensive agreement containing rules and regulations in respect to hours of labor, pay, seniority rights, etc., and the settlement of disputes. Under the rules the defendant retains the right to lay off employes whenever its business requires the curtailment of its working force in any branch; but the rule demands that the layoff must be in the inverse order of the rank on the seniority roster in the department or branch of service where the layoff takes place; that is, the last one entered on the roster must be the one first to be laid off. It appears that when this contract went into effect plaintiff was in defendant's employ as a boilermaker helper on a night shift and worked as such until September 29, 1924. He then asked for day work so that he could stay home nights with his family. No place was open in the day shift of the boilermaker department; but in the boilerwasher department a day helper's place was available. Plaintiff accepted that position and worked continuously as a boilerwasher helper until January 28, 1931, when he was laid off because it was necessary to reduce the force in that department. Later, on February 10, 1931, he was given work as a boilermaker helper, in which capacity he served, with the exception of a two-months layoff in the summer of 1933, until January 29, 1934, when again laid off, and a controversy as to seniority arose which brought on this lawsuit.
As we understand plaintiff's position, he contends that he retained the seniority rank he had on the roster of the boilermaker department on September 29, 1924, when he accepted and while he worked as helper in the boilerwasher department up to January 28, 1931. If he did so retain such rank or rating, the layoff was a breach of the contract of employment; otherwise not. The contract provides for separate seniority rosters in the different branches or departments of the defendant's operations. That being so, plaintiff could not retain seniority rights in one department while working in a different department for nearly seven years, which department the employment contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial