Gleason v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 09 June 1936
• Docket Number: 8388,C. C. 555.
• Parties: GLEASON et al. v. THOMAS et al.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

186 S.E. 304

117 W.Va. 550

GLEASON et al. v. THOMAS et al.

No. 8388; C. C. No. 555.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

June 9, 1936

Submitted April 8, 1936.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. On demurrer to a bill, an exhibit cannot nullify an allegation which it was not offered to support.

2. Seniority rights secured through the efforts of a brotherhood are such property rights as a court of equity will protect.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Fayette County.

Suit by C. R. Gleason and others against Charles F. Thomas and others, wherein defendants' demurrer was overruled and case was taken by defendants to the Supreme Court of Appeals on certificate and appeal.

Rulings affirmed.

J. W Maxwell, of Beckley, for appellants.

Geo. I Neal, of Huntington, and Goldsmith & Thornhill, of Beckley for appellees.

WOODS Judge.

A number of firemen on certain intermediate branches of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway between Handley and Hinton, all of whom are members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, an unincorporated labor union, secured a temporary injunction enjoining the enforcement of a certain order of the board of directors of the brotherhood affecting their seniority rights. The question of whether the foregoing firemen are entitled to equitable relief comes here on both certificate and appeal, the court having overruled a demurrer to the bill, and refused a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction.

The bill charges, among other things, the organization of the Brotherhood for mutual benefit of all employees who were eligible to and did become members; that same is governed and controlled by a certain constitution whereby and in pursuance of which the affairs of the brotherhood are controlled and managed by its International president and a board of directors whose powers are detailed and fixed by said constitution; that the brotherhood on behalf of its members made and entered into a certain contract of agreement with the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway whereby certain seniority rights were established; that pursuant to said contract, and renewals thereof, Handley to Hinton, and intermediate branches, compose the New River seniority district, and Hinton to Clifton Forge, and intermediate branches, the Allegheny district; that it was agreed and understood by and between the railway and the plaintiffs that said contract or agreement between the railway and the brotherhood, particularly provisions with reference to seniority rights of firemen, were and became a part of the several contracts of employment between the railway and the plaintiffs; that certain members of Lodge 236, of the brotherhood, have been anxious to have the foregoing seniority districts consolidated into one seniority district, placing the men on one seniority list for the division composed of New River and Allegheny districts; that such a consolidation, under the provisions of the constitution, could be had only by majority vote of men affected in both New River and Allegheny districts; that the proposal had been thrice submitted, and in each instance has been voted down; that certain members of the local lodge at Hinton took the matter up with the General Grievance Committee, which held the application to be out of order; that upon mature consideration of an appeal from such committee, the International president affirmed the action of the General Grievance Committee; that the International president's action was and is final; that the only course left was to the convention, which is held triennially; "that notwithstanding said Board of Directors had no power or authority to hear or decide an appeal from said order or ruling of said International President, it attempted to accept and decide an appeal therefrom, and on or about the 22nd day of May, 1934, the said Board of Directors of the said Brotherhood, in excess of the powers given to it by the constitution of the said Brotherhood, and in plain and flagrant violation of such constitution, issued an order or ruling whereby it attempted to reverse the said action and ruling of said International President, and directed that on and after August 1, 1934, the main line and all branch lines of said railway between the city of Clifton Forge and the town of Handley should be and constitute one seniority district, and that all employees of said railway engaged and employed by it as firemen, and working on its main line and branch lines between Clifton Forge and Handley should be placed upon one seniority roster, and that on and after August 1, 1934, all firemen engaged and employed anywhere on the main or branch lines of said Railway between Clifton Forge and Handley will be permitted to exercise their seniority on all parts of the main and branch lines between Clifton Forge and Handley, all of which will more fully and at large appear from a copy of the purported decision of said Board of Directors filed herewith as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. C, and prayed to be taken and read as a part of this bill;" that such order or ruling by said board of directors is in plain violation of the terms and provisions of the contract of agreement between the railway and said brotherhood, and of the several contracts of employment between the railway and said plaintiffs.

A consideration of the briefs in this case indicates that the plaintiffs and defendants are not in accord on the factual situation presented by the bill and exhibits; the defendants contending that Exhibit C is contradictory to, and controlling over, averments in the bill. It is defendants' contention that the court is not confined to the bare statements of the bill; that the bill of complaint and the prayer thereof discloses that "this suit, as well as the rights of the plaintiffs to maintain this suit is bottomed on a proceeding had within the organization of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, which proceeding is exhibited with the bill, and this court will now look to that proceeding so exhibited and the facts disclosed by the exhibit which contradict the allegations of the bill and the conclusions of counsel pleaded in the...