Hagin v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co.
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | BRAY; FRED B. WOOD |
| Citation | 152 Cal.App.2d 93,312 P.2d 356 |
| Parties | , 32 Lab.Cas. P 70,859 Ralph HAGIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC GAS and ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 17264. . As Modified |
| Decision Date | 25 June 1957 |
Page 356
v.
PACIFIC GAS and ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.
Page 357
Haley, Schenone & Tucker, Hayward, for appellant.
Richard H. Peterson, Malcolm H. Furbush, San Francisco, for respondent.
[152 Cal.App.2d 94] BRAY, Justice.
Plaintiff appeals from a portion of the judgment on an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant, presenting solely the question of whether there were issuable questions of fact in the case.
Rocord.
The complaint contained two counts. However, the appeal applies only to the court's action on the first count. It sought recovery on a claim for unpaid wages allegedly due plaintiff by defendant, together with statutory penalties for wilful failure to pay said wages at the time of plaintiff's discharge. It alleged plaintiff's employment by defendant; that defendant had entered into a contract with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 1245, which contract was for plaintiff's benefit as a member in good standing. Plaintiff was discharged on March 3, 1954, at which time the sum of $455.14 became payable to him for wages under the terms of the contract. Plaintiff demanded payment. Defendant paid $409.01 of which latter amount $63 was not disputed as being due plaintiff, but was withheld until March 30, 1954. Defendant refuses to pay the balance of $46.43. The court asks judgment for $46.43 plus a penalty under section 203, Labor Code, of $723.78 (30 days wages). 1 Defendant answered, admitting plaintiff's employment and discharge but denying substantially all the other allegations of the complaint. As a separate defense defendant incorporated its collective bargaining agreement with the I. B. O. E. W. local and alleged that said agreement set forth the exclusive procedure to resolve grievances and disputes between defendant and the union's members; that at the time of plaintiff's discharge defendant paid plaintiff his wages in full after deductions had been made for board and lodging furnished plaintiff by defendant, which deductions defendant claimed were proper and which plaintiff claimed under section 301.1 of said agreement were improper; that there was thereby presented a dispute involving the agreement's interpretation; that defendant filed a grievance with the union concerning plaintiff's discharge; that pursuant to the agreement the union referred the grievance to the investigating committee; that said committee reached a decision that defendant[152 Cal.App.2d 95] was justified under said agreement in discharging plaintiff; that under said agreement said decision is binding on defendant, the union and plaintiff; that the grievance was processed through the several steps of the grievance procedure set forth in the agreement, up to the review committee; that before that committee could consider the grievance the union withdrew it, thereby ending the grievance.
Defendant accompanied its motion for summary judgment with the affidavit of its director of industrial relations in its personnel department, in which he stated that the collective bargaining agreement upon which plaintiff based his action established a grievance procedure for determining (a) interpretation of the terms of the agreement, (b) discharge of an employee, (c) whether or not a question is a proper subject for the grievance procedure, and then detailed the procedure taken in having the grievance with plaintiff processed to the point where after the joint grievance committee referred it to the review committee it was withdrawn
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., No. 06-55035.
...and that Rite Aid did not receive contractual notice of Soremekun's wage claims as required. See Hagin v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 152 Cal.App.2d 93, 96-98, 312 P.2d 356 (1957) (holding that a discharged employee could not recover board and lodging expenses under Labor Code §§ 202 and 203 b......
-
Johnson v. Hydraulic Research & Mfg. Co.
...277 P.2d 464; Terrell v. Local Lodge 758 etc. Machinists, 141 Cal.App.2d 17, 21--22, 296 P.2d 100; Hagin v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 152 Cal.App.2d 93, 96, 312 P.2d 356; Stroman v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 161 Cal.App.2d 151, 166, 326 P.2d 155; Thornton v. Victor Meat Co., 260 Cal.App.2......
-
Zak v. State Farm Mut. Liability Ins. Co.
...sued. (Griggs v. Transocean Air Lines, supra, 176 Cal.App.2d 843, 847, 1 Cal.Rptr. 803; Hagin v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 93, 98, 312 P.2d 356; Williams v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co. (1956) 147 Cal.App.2d 1, 6, 304 P.2d 715; Cone v. Union Oil Co. (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 558, 5......
-
Griggs v. Transocean Air Lines, No. 18450
...claims which are arbitrable even though the agreement does not expressly require that to be done. Hagin v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co., 152 Cal.App.2d 93, 312 P.2d 356; Williams v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 147 Cal.App.2d 1, 304 P.2d An arbitration agreement of the nature of that made by the par......
-
Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., No. 06-55035.
...and that Rite Aid did not receive contractual notice of Soremekun's wage claims as required. See Hagin v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 152 Cal.App.2d 93, 96-98, 312 P.2d 356 (1957) (holding that a discharged employee could not recover board and lodging expenses under Labor Code §§ 202 and 203 b......
-
Johnson v. Hydraulic Research & Mfg. Co.
...277 P.2d 464; Terrell v. Local Lodge 758 etc. Machinists, 141 Cal.App.2d 17, 21--22, 296 P.2d 100; Hagin v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 152 Cal.App.2d 93, 96, 312 P.2d 356; Stroman v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 161 Cal.App.2d 151, 166, 326 P.2d 155; Thornton v. Victor Meat Co., 260 Cal.App.2......
-
Zak v. State Farm Mut. Liability Ins. Co.
...sued. (Griggs v. Transocean Air Lines, supra, 176 Cal.App.2d 843, 847, 1 Cal.Rptr. 803; Hagin v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 93, 98, 312 P.2d 356; Williams v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co. (1956) 147 Cal.App.2d 1, 6, 304 P.2d 715; Cone v. Union Oil Co. (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 558, 5......
-
Griggs v. Transocean Air Lines, No. 18450
...claims which are arbitrable even though the agreement does not expressly require that to be done. Hagin v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co., 152 Cal.App.2d 93, 312 P.2d 356; Williams v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 147 Cal.App.2d 1, 304 P.2d An arbitration agreement of the nature of that made by the par......