International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 675 v. Lassitter
| Decision Date | 26 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 72--566--72--568,s. 72--566--72--568 |
| Citation | 295 So.2d 634 |
| Parties | 87 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2490, 74 Lab.Cas. P 53,334 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 675, Appellant, v. Earl Lowell LASSITTER, Appellee. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, Appellant, v. Earl Lowell LASSITTER, Appellee. Dennis WALTON, Appellant, v. Earl Lowell LASSITTER, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas J. Pilacek, of Mamber, Gopman, Epstein & Foosaner, North Miami Beach, for appellant International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 675.
Larry Klein, of Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson & McKeown, West Palm Beach, and Woll & Mayer, Washington, D.C., for appellant International Union of Operating Engineers.
J. Leonard Fleet, Hollywood, for appellant, Dennis Walton.
Rex Conrad and Ronald A. Fitzgerald, of Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
These are consolidated appeals in a labor union violence case. It results from disputes concerning jurisdiction over jobs.
Dennis Walton struck Earl Lowell Lassitter with his fists. 1 Lassitter suffered personal injuries as a result.
Walton was a member of International Union of Operating Engineers and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 675. Lassitter was not a member of the defendant unions. It was charged that Walton was an agent of his Local and the Local was an agent of the International Union.
Lassitter sued Walton and Walton's two unions for damages. The jury trial resulted in these judgments against the defendants totaling $1,250,000:
Compensatory Damages
Walton )
Local No. 675 ) Jointly and severally $ 240,000
International Union )
Punitive Damages
Walton $ 10,000
Local No. 675 300,000
International Union 700,000
All defendants appeal. While the points are several, they group generally as a challenge to liability (except as to Walton) and damages.
We affirm the judgments as to liability--reverse them as to damages--and remand for a new trial as to all defendants upon the issue of damages, compensatory and punitive.
Lassitter charged the Local with responsibility, 1) directly, claiming the Local ordered the assault, and 2) indirectly, claiming the Local responsible under respondeat superior for the acts of Walton. The record contains adequate evidence from which the jury could infer that the union had ordered the assault, such as:
1. The President of the Local wrote down Lassitter's name upon learning of Lassitter's intent to thwart the wishes of the union.
2. Walton admitted beating plaintiff because of an 'agreement' 2 that plaintiff would not work on the job site,
3. A union member who witnessed the event was requested by the President of the Local not to testify.
And it is reasonable that the jury would find the union liable under respondeat superior when the following evidence was given that Walton was, indeed, the Local's steward and thereby its agent:
(5) There was evidence that Walton had an agreement of some sort that Lassitter would not work on the job, and prior violent methods of the Local were evidenced in that
(6) A union meeting of stewards had been held in which the 'tearing up' of 'guys in Hallandale' who were doing 'the union's' work was discussed and weapons distributed.
(7) Two witnesses, each a member of the Local, identified him as a steward, as did a foreman for another contractor on the job, and
(8) A member of the Local testified that when asking for the Union Steward he was directed to Walton.
We are satisfied under authority of Thee v. Manor Pines Convalescent Center, 235 So.2d 64 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1970) that plaintiff made an adequate case to present to the jury because an agency relationship was prima facie established by the proofs. See also Forster v. Red Top Sedan Service, Inc., 257 So.2d 95 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1972); Watkins v. Sims, 81 Fla. 730, 88 So. 764 (Fla.1921). Cf. Reina v. Metropolitan Dade County, 285 So.2d 648 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1973), where it was determined that the assault was clearly not in the performance of his master's duties.
Authority to support a finding of vicarious liability for tortious behavior is seen in Wackenhut Corporation v. Greene, 238 So.2d 431 (3rd D.C.A.Fla.1970); Dye v. Reichard, 183 So.2d 863 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1966) and Sands v. Ivy Liquors, Inc., 192 So.2d 775 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1966). In Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Burquest, 101 So.2d 828 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1958) the court said:
The jury was properly instructed as to liability by the trial court in accordance with Florida Standard Jury Instruction 3.3(b), and no objection or other request on the issue was made during the charge conference.
The Local argues several minute propositions in its appellate presentation. We deem them other than as here discussed, to be without merit and without need for opinion exploration. Thus, there is no basis for disturbing the judgment as to the Local's liability.
THE INTERNATIONAL UNION:
It is accepted that for the International to be liable plaintiff must have proved that the Local Union was International's agent. There is sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the Local ordered, or approved, the assault and that the assault was within the scope of Walton's duty. See, M R & R Trucking Co. v. Griffin, 198 So.2d 879 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1967). The question remains whether the International is liable for violence initiated by affiliated locals in jurisdictional disputes. The International appellate position is that its constitution 'permits Local Unions to conduct their relations with employers, including the right to strike, boycott and take actions incidental thereto . . ..' It argues, therefore, that there was a complete absence of International's involvement. The International attempts The annotation at 36 A.L.R.3d 405 (1971) states at 411:
to analogize the local-international situation with corporate parent-subsidiary liabilities. The comparison is not reasonable as the corporate veil hardly could be said to cloak an international union whose directives and constitution govern a local.
'If an international union is joined as a defendant in an action in which the unlawful conduct was allegedly committed by members of a local union, the union's constitution should be examined to determine the relationship of the organizations to each other.'
Contra to International's position, the International constitution specifically provides for its complete domination over the Local. The International president may suspend or remove Local officers, and suspend or revoke Local charters. The constitution provides the International with power to prohibit Locals from taking any action with an employer unless authorized by the International. 3 In addition, the Local is referred to in the constitution as a 'subordinate sub-division' of the International. In International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 275 F.2d 610 (4th Cir. 1960) the court found that provisions similar to these evidenced such control 'as to warrant the conclusion that the local . . . (was) . . . a component of the International.'
The case of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners v. Humphreys, 203 Va. 781, 127 S.E.2d 98 (1962), cert. den. 371 U.S. 954, 83 S.Ct. 509, 9 L.Ed.2d 501 (1963), held on similar facts that all defendants (including the International) were liable. The Virginia case of United Brotherhood referred to an earlier decision by that court which was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court; the United Brotherhood court interpreted their decision in United Const. Workers v. Laburnum Const. Corp., 194 Va. 872, 75 S.E.2d 694 (1953), aff'd 347 U.S. 656, 74 S.Ct. 833, 98 L.Ed. 1025 (1954), to say.
'(T)hat the very nature of the organization of the International Union was sufficient to show that the district organization was an arm of the international, and an agency relationship existed between the two bodies.' 127 S.E.2d at 102.
This United Construction case post-dates the case of United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 344, 42 S.Ct. 570, 66 L.Ed. 975 (1922), upon which International relies. Further, the Coronado case may be distinguished because it is the Evidence of agency upon which the jury may rely, and in Coronado evidence of such agency was found lacking. The union constitutional provisions mentioned above, when examined, can provide the evidence from which a jury might properly infer an agency relationship. An agent of the International regularly reported on jurisdicational disputes and Local activities. It is evident from the Virginiacase of United Const. Workers, that upon evidence of pervasive constitutional control the International union may have an agency relationship with the Local, and that this jury was justified in finding that relationship. We believe that this discussion covers the contral appellate assertion as to its liability.
We go now to the second major phase of this appeal, damages.
Were the damage awards excessive? We are obliged under the facts of this case and upon our consideration of the advice of counsel to answer in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty
...which aroused the jury's passion, let alone as evidence of "the amount of the excess." See International Union of Operating Eng. v. Lassitter, 295 So.2d 634, 639 n. 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), reversed, 314 So.2d 761 (Fla.1975), mandate conformed to, 325 So.2d 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), reversed o......
-
Shimman v. Frank
...351 (6th Cir. 1970); NLRB v. Int. Longshore & Warehouse Union, 283 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1960).37 In Int'l Union of Operating Eng. Local No. 675 v. Lassitter, 295 So.2d 634 (Fla.App.1974), quashed on other grounds, 314 So.2d 761 (Fla.1975), on remand, 325 So.2d 408 (Fla.App.1975), the court st......
-
Fopay v. Noveroske
...advantage to show his net earnings. 166 N.W.2d at 181. Similarly, in International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 675 v. Lassitter, 295 So.2d 634 (Fla.App.1974), the court found that the establishment of a net worth figure was a minimum requirement to support an award of punitive d......
-
Rinaldi v. Aaron, 45935
...reported at 296 So.2d 632 (Fla.App.3, 1974), which purportedly conflicts with International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 675 v. Lassiter, etc., 295 So.2d 634 (Fla.App.4, 1974), (now pending before us on petition for writ of certiorari). We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V,......