Hagin v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1957
• 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
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 356

312 P.2d 356

152 Cal.App.2d 93, 32 Lab.Cas. P 70,859

Ralph HAGIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PACIFIC GAS and ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. 17264.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

As Modified June 25, 1957.

Haley, Schenone & Tucker, Hayward, for appellant.

Richard H. Peterson, Malcolm H. Furbush, San Francisco, for respondent.

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 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 'without prejudice.' Plaintiff filed and affidavit giving the detail of his claim for wages. It showed that on discharge plaintiff demanded $498.37 which he claimed was due him. Defendant withheld $37.75 for room and board and only allowed $5.18 for expenses, paying defendant $383.76, leaving a balance of $114.61 claimed by plaintiff. Approximately 16 days after discharge defendant paid plaintiff $5.18 and plaintiff made several further demands for payment. Twenty-seven days after discharge defendant paid plaintiff an additional $63. Thus at the time of filing suit plaintiff had been paid all of his claims except $46.43. Admittedly this sum is for expenses which plaintiff claims he is entitled to under the collective bargaining agreement and which defendant denies he is entitled to thereunder. Plaintiff further states that he filed a claim for the amount due him with the Division of Labor Law Enforcement, which dismissed it without prejudice. The affidavit stated plaintiff had not requested the union to act and that when he found out that the union had made the withholding of his wages the subject of a grievance, he wrote the union that he would not be bound by any decision rendered. The union thereupon withdrew the grievance. Plaintiff did not deny the statements in defendant's affidavit as to the matters required by the agreement to be submitted to the grievance committee. He could not because section 102.6 of the agreement so provides.

Necessity to Submit Grievance.

The rule stated in Williams v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 147 Cal.App.2d 1, 304 P.2d 715, 717, seems to be well settled in California. That rule is: 'It has been held in cases involving collective bargaining agreements that when it is provided that a dispute may be referred to arbitration, either party has an option to arbitrate if he so desires but, should he desire to litigate, he must first submit to arbitration and exhaust that remedy.' See also Cone v. Union Oil Co., 129 Cal.App.2d 558, at page 562, 277 P.2d 464, at page 467, where as here the complaint and the affidavits showed 'that plaintiff and the Union on her behalf have failed and neglected to pursue and exhaust the remedies given by the collective bargaining agreement, namely, the grievance and arbitration procedures provided therein, and that the Company was in no way in default or at fault in this regard.' The reviewing court upheld the granting of a summary judgment against the plaintiff. The court stated, 129 Cal.App.2d at page 563, 277 P.2d at page 468: 'It is the general rule that a party to a collective bargaining contract which provides grievance and arbitration machinery for the settlement of disputes within the scope of such contract must exhaust these internal remedies before resorting to the courts in the absence of facts which would excuse him from pursuing such...