Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 52 v. Civil City of Elkhart, Ind.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 20A03-8905-CV-208,20A03-8905-CV-208 |
| Citation | 551 N.E.2d 469 |
| Parties | FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE LODGE NO. 52, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. CIVIL CITY OF ELKHART, Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Joseph V. Simeri, Kramer, Butler, Simeri, Konopa & Laderer, South Bend, for appellant.
John T. Neighbours, Hudnall A. Pfeiffer, and William O. Harrington, Baker & Daniels, Indianapolis, and Rebecca F. Butler, City Atty., City of Elkhart, Elkhart, for appellee.
Defendant-appellant Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 52 (the Lodge) appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of plaintiff-appellee Civil City of Elkhart, Indiana (the City). In granting summary judgment, the Elkhart Superior Court determined that the collective bargaining agreement executed by the Lodge and the City on November 26, 1985 terminated on December 31, 1988, and that the employment relations between the parties were governed by the proposed contract submitted to the Lodge by the City on October 19, 1988.
The undisputed facts disclose that on November 26, 1985, the City and the Lodge entered into a collective bargaining agreement. The term of the agreement was set out in Article II:
"Section 1. This Agreement shall be in effect as [sic] January 1, 1986, and shall remain in full force and effect until and including the 31st day of December, 1987. It shall be automatically renewed from year to year thereafter unless either party shall notify the other in writing no later than April 15 of the calendar year following the anniversary date that it desires to modify or terminate this Agreement.
Section 2. The terms and provisions of this Agreement shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect until agreement on a new contract is reached.
Section 3. Between April 1 and April 15 of each calendar year, either party may notify the other in writing of its desire to reopen the Agreement, provided that such reopener and any resulting negotiations shall be limited to compensatory items as defined by Elkhart City Ordinance No. 3637 or its successor. It is agreed that all other provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect during such negotiations, and shall continue thereafter in full force and effect, with such modifications of compensatory items as may result, until the termination of this Agreement."
The collective bargaining agreement was modified in 1987. Thereafter, from October 1987 through January 1988, negotiating sessions were held during which noneconomic aspects of the contract were discussed but were not fully resolved.
In a letter dated May 13, 1988, the City proposed an agenda for future negotiations, thereby indicating its desire to modify the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. When the parties met on May 19, 1988, the City presented a written contract proposal. The Lodge refused to consider the proposal and rebuffed the City's repeated invitations to renew negotiations.
On October 19, 1988, the City submitted a written contract proposal as its last and final offer. The City advised the Lodge:
"[I]f we do not receive the benefit of a prompt response and no negotiations have taken place within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, then this offer will become final and the City will implement the terms and conditions of the offer on January 1, 1989, as the binding agreement between the parties."
The Lodge responded that the 1986 collective bargaining agreement remained in effect and governed the parties' relations. From this impasse, the City instituted its declaratory judgment action.
On appeal from an adverse summary judgment, the Lodge challenges that portion of the trial court's decision which held that the collective bargaining agreement executed by the parties on November 26, 1985 terminated on December 31, 1988. According to the Lodge, the agreement could not be terminated by the City at will because the contract was permanent in duration. The City responds that the term of the agreement is better characterized as indefinite.
Whether the collective bargaining agreement is deemed a permanent contract or an indefinite contract, it remains an agreement terminable at will by either party.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Anthem, Inc.
...the conduct of a party. Salcedo v. Toepp, 696 N.E.2d 426, 435 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998); see also FOP Lodge No. 52 v. Civil City of Elkhart, 551 N.E.2d 469, 471 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) trans. denied (noting that strict performance of the terms of a contract on the part of one party may be waived by......
-
Entm't USA, Inc. v. Moorehead Commc'ns, Inc.
...Workers of Am., U.A.W. v. Randall Div. of Textron, Inc., 5 F.3d 224, 230 (7th Cir.1993) (quoting Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 52 v. City of Elkhart, 551 N.E.2d 469, 472 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) ). Determining the point at which a party's contractual obligation terminated is a triable issue ......
-
International Union of United Auto., Aerospace and Agr. Implement Workers of America, U.A.W. v. Randall Div. of Textron, Inc.
...(1947); Indiana Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Walters, 221 Ind. 642, 50 N.E.2d 868, 870 (Ind.1943); Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 52 v. City of Elkhart, 551 N.E.2d 469, 472 (Ind.Ct.App.1990); Monon R.R. v. New York Cent. R.R., 141 Ind.App. 277, 227 N.E.2d 450, 456 (Ind.Ct.App.1967). The di......
-
Entm't United States, Inc. v. Moorehead Commc'ns, Inc., CAUSE NO. 1:12-cv-116 RLM
...turns on the contract's subject matter and the contracting parties' conduct and situation. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 52 v. Civil City of Elkhart, 551 N.E.2d 469, 472 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). The parties disagree on what is reasonable. Moorehead says the agreement expired two years af......