Hughes Tool Co. v. Richards

• Decision Date: 24 December 1980
• Docket Number: No. B2373,B2373
• Citation: 610 S.W.2d 232
• Parties: HUGHES TOOL COMPANY, Appellant, v. Willie D. RICHARDS, Appellee. (14th Dist.)
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 232

610 S.W.2d 232

HUGHES TOOL COMPANY, Appellant, v. Willie D. RICHARDS, Appellee.

No. B2373.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

Dec. 24, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 1981.

Kent W. Robinson, Marcia A. Graham, Andrews, Kurth, Campbell & Jones, Houston, for appellant.

Gordon R. Cooper, Houston, for appellee.

Before COULSON, MILLER and PAUL PRESSLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c (Vernon Supp.1978) brought by Willie D. Richards, appellee (Richards) against his former employer, Hughes Tool Company, appellant (Hughes). Richards alleges he was discharged for making a worker's compensation claim while in Hughes' employ and on this basis Richards alleges art. 8307c was violated. Trial below was to a jury, and in response to 5 special issues the jury found in Richards' favor, awarding $15,000.00 in past and future loss of earnings and $15,000.00 in exemplary damages. We reverse and render judgment for Hughes.

Richards was hired by Hughes in 1965 and at the time of his discharge in 1975 he was working in the Special Products section at Hughes. On July 7, 1975, Richards, while at work, allegedly sustained an injury to his shoulder. After reporting the injury to a supervisor, Jack Wooten, Richards went to Hughes' Medical and Safety Services and was examined by Dr. Hines, the company doctor. After the examination Richards was released for "light duty" the remainder of the day.

The following day Richards returned to the clinic and allegedly used profanity in front of a nurse and several persons waiting to receive their pre-employment physicals. In addition, after he was directed to Mr. C. L. Day, a Medical and Safety supervisor, Richards continued to use profane and abusive language and allegedly lifted a chair as if to hit Day.

Immediately after this incident a discussion was held, between Richards' supervisors, Day, a Union grievance man and the head of Medical and Safety Services, Mr. J. W. O'Neal. At the conclusion of this discussion, Richards was suspended pending an investigation and hearing.

On July 14, 1975, a hearing was conducted concerning Richards' conduct. At the hearing Richards was represented by three Union representatives. The hearing culminated with Richards' suspension being converted to a discharge. After the conclusion of the initial hearing. Richards and the Union filed a grievance protesting his discharge. A formal hearing on the grievance was held with Richards and his Union representation in attendance. The hearing concluded with a determination that Richards' discharge was for "just cause" and should be upheld.

Thereafter, the Union requested Mr. J. D. Belton, a production manager, to review the matter. Belton agreed to hold a special, informal hearing. At this hearing Richards interrupted and made outbursts which disrupted the meeting and by mutual consent the meeting was adjourned, with Richards' discharge being upheld. No other action pursuant to the grievance procedure was taken by either Richards or the Union. This lawsuit followed.

Trial below resulted in a verdict in Richards' favor. Hughes appeals, alleging 13 points of error.

Points of error 2 and 4 asserted by Hughes are dispositive of the appeal. In these points of error Hughes asserts that the trial court erred in failing to grant their motion for instructed verdict and motion for judgment N.O.V. for the reason that Richards' claim is barred by the final, adverse determination regarding his discharge reached through the contractual grievance procedure established by Hughes and Richards' Union. We agree.

It has been held that after an adverse final arbitration decision in a grievance process, an employee who alleges he was fired for filing a worker's compensation claim, could not then bring suit under art. 8307c. Thompson v. Monsanto Co., 559 S.W.2d 873 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (14th Dist.) 1977, no writ). This is true unless the employee shows that the union failed to fairly represent him in the grievance process, Id. at 875; Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967), or where discrimination in employment practices is involved. 559 S.W.2d at 876; Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974).

Recently, in Carnation Co. v. Borner, 610 S.W.2d 450, 24 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 111 (1980), the Supreme Court faced the question of whether an employee could bring suit under 8307c after his union had filed a grievance on his behalf but had not done anything in pursuit of the claim beyond the filing. Affirming the Court of Civil Appeals, the Supreme Court held that suit could properly be brought under 8307c even though a grievance had been filed. The court distinguished Thompson from the Carnation facts, stating:

We find that (the Carnation employee's) position is distinguishable. (The Carnation employee) filed a grievance pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. Once the grievance was filed, its processing was under the exclusive control of the Union. No arbitration procedure was invoked by the Union and no final and binding arbitration decision was obtained. No resolution of (the employee's) grievance was ever reached.

610 S.W.2d 453, 24 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. at 113.

In a case with facts surprisingly similar to those that exist in the case at bar it was held that a suit under 8307c was precluded because the matter had been addressed in the grievance procedure. In Spainhouer v Western Electric Co., 592 S.W.2d 662 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1979, writ filed) plaintiff was injured in the course of her employment with defendant and claimed worker's compensation benefits. She settled her claim for compensation but when she failed to report for duty as instructed by defendant, she was discharged. Claiming that she was wrongfully discharged by defendant, she followed the grievance procedures contained in the contract between...