Harrison v. Pullman Co., 9733.

• Decision Date: 20 February 1934
• Docket Number: No. 9733.,9733.
• Citation: 68 F.2d 826
• Parties: HARRISON v. PULLMAN CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

68 F.2d 826 (1934)

HARRISON v. PULLMAN CO.

No. 9733.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

January 27, 1934.

Rehearing Denied February 20, 1934.

William L. Mason, of St. Louis, Mo. (R. N. Rooks and Mason & Flynn, all of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.

Sears Lehmann, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

Before STONE, SANBORN, and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges.

VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, a former Pullman porter, and a citizen and resident of the state of Missouri, brought suit against appellee, a citizen and resident of the state of Illinois, in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, Mo., to recover damages for breach of contract in his alleged wrongful discharge from the service of appellee. At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, the court upon motion directed a verdict for defendant.

It is alleged that on or about February 15, 1926, appellee promulgated and delivered to appellant, and to its other employees of the same class, a printed agreement designated "Agreement between the Pullman Company and its Porters and Maids." The part of that agreement relied upon by appellant, and having application to the situation here presented, is rule 9, which, so far as pertinent, reads as follows:

"Rule 9. (a) Suggestions, recommendations and grievances and all other questions which arise as to working conditions under these rules, and such other matters as may be of importance to the welfare of the employees, shall be handled in accordance with the Plan of Employee Representation.

"(b) The right of the Pullman Company to suspend or discharge an employee at any time for incompetency, or other just and sufficient reasons is recognized, as is also the right of an employee to a fair and impartial hearing at the earliest possible date as to the cause and justification for suspension or dismissal, provided such hearing is requested by such employee or any of his representatives on the Local Committee under the Plan of Employee Representation within 30 days from the date of such suspension or discharge, and provided such employee has completed his probationary period. If such hearing is requested and held and it is found that the employee has been unjustly discharged or dealt with, such employee shall be reinstated, and compensation for the wage loss, if any, suffered by him or her.

"(c) Should an employee subject to this agreement believe that he has been unjustly dealt with or any of the provisions of this agreement have been violated, he may appeal to his District official, and failing satisfactory adjustment, he may proceed as follows:

"(d) He may refer the matter to the Local Committee, such committee to grant prompt hearing and careful consideration and make its recommendation to the highest local officer of the Company designated to handle such matters. Failing satisfactory adjustment the claimant or the Local Committee may refer the matter to the Zone General Committee under the Plan of Employee Representation, and failing satisfactory adjustment, to the Bureau of Industrial Relations, with right to appeal as provided by law."

It was...