Hartley v. Brotherhood of Ry. & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers & Station Emps.

• Decision Date: 24 February 1938
• Docket Number: No. 79.,79.
• Citation: 277 N.W. 885,283 Mich. 201
• Parties: HARTLEY v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS AND STATION EMPLOYEES.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

283 Mich. 201

277 N.W. 885

HARTLEY

v.BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY AND STEAMSHIP CLERKS, FREIGHT HANDLERS AND STATION EMPLOYEES.

No. 79.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 24, 1938.

Action by Martha O. Hartley against the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers and Station Employees for breach of contract. Judgment of no cause of action, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Lester S. Moll, judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Albert McClatchey, of Detroit (Thomas W. Payne, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.

Wiley, Streeter & Ford, of Detroit, and Mulholland & Mulholland, of Toledo, for appellee.

CHANDLER, Justice.

Defendant, hereinafter called the Brotherhood, is a voluntary unincorporated labor association of which plaintiff has been a member for a number of years; the purposes of said organization being recited in the preamble to its constitution as follows:

‘Unity guided by intelligence is a bulwark of strength that can withstand all attacks. Without intelligent organization we can not acquire the discipline which enables us to act together, concentrate our strength and direct our efforts toward a common purpose.

‘Therefore, for the purpose of promoting such unity of action, for our mutual protection and to promote the general welfare of our crafts, the organization known as the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employes has been established.’

In 1921 defendant entered into an agreement with the Grand Trunk Railway System, hereinafter called the Railway. The agreement related to the working conditions of certain employees, according certain rights and privileges, and, in addition to other provisions, rules relative to seniority rights of various employees were promulgated:

‘Promotion Basis-Promotions to positions coming within the scope of this agreement shall be based on ability, merit and seniority, ability and merit being sufficient, seniority shall prevail, supervising officer to be the judge.’ Rule 4, Art. 3.

‘Reducing Force-When force is reduced the senior employees on the seniority district, or sub-district, capable of doing the work, will be retained, merit and ability to be given consideration in accordance with Rule 4 of this Article.’ Rule 16, Art. 3.

‘Exercising Seniority-The exercise of seniority in reduction of force or displacing junior employees provided for in this article is subject to the provisions of Rule 4 of this Article.’ (Rule 25, Art. 3)

‘Date Effective-Effective July 1, 1921, this agreement shall supersede and annul all existing agreement and practices or working conditions in conflict therewith, subject to thirty (30) days written notice given either party by the other of a desired change.’ Rule 70, art. 12.

In 1930, the Railway commenced to receive protests from groups of its employees and individuals because married women were retained in its employ, while others, who had no other source of income, were dismissed when a reduction of personnel became necessary. The situation became so acute that in December, 1931, the Railway notified defendant that it would be necessary to modify the rules relative to a reduction of personnel. Negotiations between representatives of the defendant and the Railway resulted in the following agreement, executed March 7, 1932, by Charles L. Brisley, local chairman of the Brotherhood in the district in which plaintiff was employed:

‘Effective March 16, 1932, all married women will be relieved from the service, irrespective of seniority, unless there are some extenuating circumstances to be presented to a representative of the management and the local chairman or other clerk, who will decide.

‘Hereafter, any female employee getting married will immediately be relieved from the service.

‘To the extent that the provisions hereof are inconsistent with or conflicting with the provisions of the agreement between the Grand Trunk Railway System Lines (in the United States) and all that class of clerks and other office and station employees represented by the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, bearing the effective date of July 1, 1921, this agreement shall be deemed to supersede all of such inconsistent or conflicting provisions.’

Plaintiff, a married woman, was employed by the Railway from December 29, 1919, to March 18, 1932, during...