Jones v. International Union of Operating Engineers
| Citation | 1963 NMSC 118,72 N.M. 322,383 P.2d 571 |
| Decision Date | 24 June 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 876,C,No. 7215,876,7215 |
| Parties | A. W. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, International Union of Operating Engineers Localontinental Oil Company, a corporation, D. A. Brazzel, C. L. McMillan and E. E. Gillespie, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
Poole & Poole, Albuquerque, for appellant.
Neal & Fort, Carlsbad, Kellahin & Fox, Santa Fe, Myer Rosenberg, Carlsbad, Gordon H. Mayberry, Denver, Colo., for appellees.
A. W. Jones, a former employee of Continental Oil Company, (hereafter termed 'Conoco') was discharged following his refusal to sign a written statement as to a pre-existing eye injury and agreement that he was only qualified to work in the classification of yardman. He sued Conoco and his union, International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 876, (hereafter referred to as 'Local No. 876'); International Union of Operating Engineers, (hereafter referred to as 'International'), parent labor organization of Local No. 876; and certain officers of Conoco and the unions. The action seeks damages against Conoco for a claimed wrongful discharge and against the union because of plaintiff's charge that it arbitrarily, fraudulently, in bad faith and in violation of its trust as sole bargaining agent, refused to demand that plaintiff's grievance be submitted to arbitration. Plaintiff also charges a conspiracy between certain officials of Conoco and the unions to prevent plaintiff from securing his rights. The district court sustained motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state grounds for relief. This appeal is from the order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The questions presented by this appeal are of first impression in New Mexico. We have not been referred to, nor have we found any case involving a labor contract just like the one in this case.
The defendants filed separate but identical motions to dismiss, generally upon the ground of failure to state a cause of action because, (1) the employer's common-law right to discharge an employee at will was not restricted by the collective bargaining agreement; (2) no right to arbitration was pled; and (3) New Mexico Statutes authorize an employer to discharge for failure of the employee to give a demanded statement of prior disability. The motion also asserts that no facts are alleged upon which the conspiracy count may be founded.
Defendants rest their position in support of the dismissal of the complaint upon three contentions: (1) that Conoco's right to discharge is not restricted by the labor agreement; (2) that the collective bargaining agreement contains no provision for arbitration of an employee's grievance; and (3) that a conspiracy is not charged.
Since the dismissal of the complaint was for failure to state a cause of action, there are no facts except as alleged in the complaint. In considering whether a complaint states a cause of action, we, of course, accept as true all facts well pleaded. Jernigan v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 69 N.M. 336, 367 P.2d 519. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is properly granted only when it appears that plaintiff cannot recover or be entitled to relief under any state of facts provable under the claim. Jernigan v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., supra; Chavez v. Sedillo, 59 N.M. 357, 284 P.2d 1026; Adams v. Cox, 52 N.M. 56, 191 P.2d 352; Ritter v. Albuquerque Gas & Electric Co., 47 N.M. 329, 142 P.2d 919, 153 A.L.R. 273.
Conoco and Gillespie agree that the motion admits all facts well pleaded and that this includes: (1) plaintiff's employment by Conoco; (2) membership in defendant union; (3) the collective bargaining agreement; and (4) that Conoco discharged plaintiff without just cause. The union defendants deny any obligation to submit plaintiff's grievance to arbitration.
The admission that the complaint alleges plaintiff's discharge without just cause and the assertion that the labor agreement provides no method of arbitration of an employee's grievance, requires an examination of the collective bargaining agreement. Having grounded his action upon an alleged breach of the collective bargaining agreement, and attached a copy thereof to the complaint, plaintiff's right to recover is measured by the terms and conditions of that agreement. Garbutt v. Blanding Mines Co., (10th Cir., 1944), 141 F.2d 679.
The contract, in this instance, is one between the employer and the union as sole bargaining representative for all of Conoco's employees as authorized by the National Labor Relations Act. The fact that plaintiff was not a party to the collective bargaining agreement at once raises the question of whether he may enforce its terms. It is conceded that no express right of enforcement is provided by the agreement.
As stated by Professor Summers in his article, 'Individual Rights in Collective Agreements and Arbitration,' 37 N.Y.Univ.L.Rev. 362:
'State courts have been confronted with the problem of the rights of individuals under the collective agreement in a substantial number of cases, but no settled body of law has developed.'
The cases are collected and analyzed in various law review articles. See 13 Rutgers L.Rev. 631; 69 Har.L.Rev. 601; 45 Cornell L.Q. 25; 8 Lab.L.J. 316; 9 Buffalo L.Rev. 239. See, also, Jenkins v. Wm. Schluderberg-T. J. Kurdle Co., 217 Md. 556, 144 A.2d 88, where, after discussing three of the views allowing an individual employee to sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement, under certain conditions, it was said:
The weight of the modern view is that an individual employee may enforce a collective labor agreement between the union, as bargaining representative, and the employer, insofar as it embodies rights inserted therein for the employee's benefit as contrasted to those for the benefit of the union. This view is usually rested either upon the ground that the employee is a third-party beneficiary or that the contracting union acted as his agent. Annotation, 18 A.L.R.2d 352, 361; Pattenge v. Wagner Iron Works, 275 Wis. 495, 82 N.W.2d 172; Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 348 U.S. 437, 460, 75 S.Ct. 488, 99 L.Ed. 510; Hudak v. Hornell Industries, 304 N.Y. 207, 214, 106 N.E.2d 609; Huston v. Washington Wood & Coal Co., 4 Wash.2d 449, 103 P.2d 1095.
The general rule is, however, that an individual employee must show that he has exhausted the grievance procedures provided by the agreement as a condition to his right to maintain an action in court. Jenkins v. Wm. Schluderberg-T. J. Kurdle Co., supra; Cone v. Union Oil Co., 129 Cal.App.2d 558, 564, 277 P.2d 464, 468; Cox, 'Individual Enforcement of Collective Bargaining Agreements,' 8 Lab.L.J. 850. See also 50 Columbia L.Rev. 731; 11 U.Pitt.L.Rev. 35; 3 Mo.L.Rev. 252; 50 N.W.U.L.Rev. 143; 3 Buffalo L.Rev. 270; 1949 Wis.L.Rev. 154.
Because the grievance in this case is the alleged wrongful discharge, it follows that if Conoco had an unrestricted right of discharge, plaintiff has no claim against either Conoco or Local No. 876. Our first inquiry, therefore, concerns Conoco's right of discharge. Conoco had a common-law right to discharge an employee at any time and whether for just cause or not, unless that right is restricted by the agreement. Odell v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., (10th Cir., 1953), 201 F.2d 123, 128; United States Steel Corp. v. Nichols, (6th Cir., 1956), 229 F.2d 396, 399, 56 A.L.R.2d 980. Plaintiff does not quarrel with that position but asserts that the collective agreement limited Conoco's right to discharge except for just cause.
The collective bargaining agreement in this case does not contain an express, affirmative statement limiting the employer's right to discharge for just cause. Defendants insist that Article XV of the written agreement establishes the employer's rights and liabilities and contains no limitation on the right to discharge. The pertinent portion of that provision reads:
'Responsibility of the Company: The right to hire and to maintain order and efficiency is the responsibility solely of the Company.
'The right to promote, discipline and discharge are likewise the responsibility solely of the Company, provided that claims of discriminatory promotions and of wrongful or unjust discipline or discharges shall be subject to settlement as provided in Article XIII.'
It is generally recognized that collective bargaining agreements possess special characteristics which differ from the usual commercial contract. It is said in a law review article by Jay, 'Arbitration and the Federal Common Law of Collective Bargaining Agreements,' 37 N.Y.Univ.L.Rev. 448, 462, regarding the proper construction of such agreements:
See also United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Leopoldio CHACON
...the New Mexico Supreme Court admitted that its previous use of the term “fiduciary capacity” in Jones v. Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, 72 N.M. 322, 329, 383 P.2d 571, 576 (1963) was really meant to refer only to a union's duty to represent union members under a collective bargaining a......
-
Luginbuhl v. City of Gallup
...grievance not expressly excluded by its terms, and doubt should be resolved in favor of arbitration.” Jones v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, 72 N.M. 322, 331, 383 P.2d 571, 577 (1963); see AT & T Techs., Inc. v. Commc'ns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 650, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (......
-
Las Luminarias of the New Mexico Council of the Blind v. Isengard
...to relief under any state of facts provable under the claim. Hall v. Budagher, 76 N.M. 561, 417 P.2d 71 (1966); Jones v. International Union of Operating Engineers, supra. Only when there is a total failure to allege some matter which is essential to the relief sought should such a motion b......
-
Akins v. United Steel Workers Of America
...collective bargaining agreements. See Callahan, 2006-NMSC-010, ¶¶ 9-10, 139 N.M. 201, 131 P.3d 51; Jones v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, 72 N.M. 322, 330, 383 P.2d 571, 576 (1963). More generally, however, the DFR cause of action is a common-law means of enforcing the fiduciary obligati......