Kennedy v. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., No. 35004

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the CourtMALLERY; WEAVER; HUNTER; ROSELLINI
PartiesPaul V. KENNEDY, K. O. Jonasson and Edith Gorton, Respondents, v. WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant.
Decision Date15 October 1959
Docket NumberNo. 35004

Page 766

54 Wn.2d 766
344 P.2d 1025
Paul V. KENNEDY, K. O. Jonasson and Edith Gorton, Respondents,
v.
WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant.
No. 35004.
Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.
Oct. 15, 1959.

Oliver Malm, Roger C. Henselman, Tacoma, for appellant.

Houghton, Cluck, Coughlin & Henry, Seattle, for respondents.

MALLERY, Judge.

This is an action to recover an additional day's pay under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiffs are the assignees of defendant's employees.

Believing the instant case to be controlled by Local Union 9-2521, IWA-CIO, Plywood and Veneer Workers v. Aberdeen Plywood Corporation, 47 Wash.2d 636, 289 P.2d 206, the trial court entered judgment for the plaintiffs, from which the defendant appeals.

Respondents contend the trial court was correct in so doing. The appellant contends to the contrary, and we agree.

In both cases, the claim for an extra day's pay arose out of the fact that in 1954 the Fourth of July fell in the middle

Page 767

of the vacation period designated by the employers. Since the employees were on strike, none of them returned to work at the end of the vacation period. They were paid for the regular vacation, but not for an extra day on account of the holiday falling within the vacation.

The claim herein is dependent on the proper interpretation to be be given to Articles VII and XV(g) of the agreement. They provide:

'Article VII--Holidays

'The following holidays shall be observed: Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, New Year's Day, * * * and Christmas Day * * * shall be recognized as paid holidays for qualified employees. * * * If a holiday falls on Sunday, the following Monday shall be recognized as the holiday. Holiday pay shall be eight (8) hours' pay per holiday computed at the qualified employee's regular job rate of pay for his regular work schedule. * * *

[344 P.2d 1026] 'An employee is qualified for holiday pay if he has at least thirty-one (31) days' seniority prior to the holiday and works the last regularly scheduled work day before and the first regularly scheduled work day after the 'paid' holiday. * * *

'Article XV--Vacations * * *

'g. If a holiday occurs during the calendar week in which the vacations are taken by any of the employees, one additional day's vacation shall be taken because of such holiday by all individuals who are entitled to a complete vacation based on 1400 hours worked, but no additional day of vacation shall be granted to those who are taking vacations based on less than 1400 hours worked.' (Italics ours.)

Appellant contends that Article XV(g) does no more than extend a vacation by one day if a holiday happens to fall within it, and pay for that extra day is solely dependent on whether the individual employee qualifies for a paid holiday under Article VII. This is for the reason that the agreement elsewhere provides for precise pay schedules for vacations based on the number of hours worked by an individual employee during the preceding year.

Respondents contend that the employees qualify for an extra day's pay for the Fourth of July under Article XV(g) because it extended the vacation period as such by one

Page 768

extra day, and, hence, they should be paid for it. This conclusion is predicated upon the theory that it must be inferred that the extra day of vacation automatically enlarges the precise provision for paid vacations by one day. This inference was allowed in the Local Union 9-2521 case, supra.

There is a substantial difference between the instant case and the Local Union 9-2521 case, supra. The latter case was an appeal from a summary judgment, and the record contained no evidence of the facts prevailing when the agreement was made or the interpretation given it by the parties. The record in the instant case has a complete history of the agreement and the construction given to it by the parties.

In construing a contract, the intention of the parties must control (Crofton v. Bargreen, Wash., 332 P.2d 1081), and the interpretation which the parties to a contract have placed on it will be given great, if not controlling, weight. Fancher v. Landreth, 51 Wash.2d 297, 317 P.2d 1066; 12 Am.Jur., Contracts, 787, § 249.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Langan v. Valicopters, Inc., No. 44542
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 4 Agosto 1977
    ...the intention of the parties will be given great, if not controlling, weight. See Kennedy v. Weyerhaeuser Tbr. Co., 54 Wash.2d 766, 344 P.2d 1025 A director of NOFPA testified that their interpretation of rule No. 7, coupled with the basic purpose of NOFPA (to insure consumers that the prod......
  • Wahl's Estate, Matter of, No. 4349-III-5
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 6 Mayo 1982
    ...weight. Langan v. Valicopters, Inc., 88 Wash.2d 855, 859, 567 P.2d 218 (1977); Kennedy v. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., 54 Wash.2d 766, 344 P.2d 1025 Determination of the intent of the contracting parties is to be accomplished by viewing the contract as a whole, the subject matter and objective ......
  • Prager's, Inc. v. Bullitt Co., No. 2--39430--1
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 29 Diciembre 1969
    ...of Contracts § 235(e) (1932); [463 P.2d 222] 17 Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 274; Kennedy v. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., 54 Wash.2d 766, 344 P.2d 1025 (1959); Tone v. Parlaman, 154 Wash. 389, 282 P. 208 (1929); Nelson v. Western Steam Navigation Co., 52 Wash. 177, 100 P. 325 (1909); Doll v. Maravilas......
  • Poggi v. Tool Research & Engineering Corp., No. 39457
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 20 Febrero 1969
    ...if not controlling, weight. Fancher v. Landreth,51 Wash.2d 297, 317 P.2d 1066 (1957); Kennedy v. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co.,54 Wash.2d 766, 344 P.2d 1025 (1959); Topliff v. Topliff, 122 U.S. 121, 7 S.Ct. 1057, 30 L.Ed. 1110 (1887). And the courts, under the guise of construing[451 P.2d 301] or......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Langan v. Valicopters, Inc., No. 44542
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 4 Agosto 1977
    ...the intention of the parties will be given great, if not controlling, weight. See Kennedy v. Weyerhaeuser Tbr. Co., 54 Wash.2d 766, 344 P.2d 1025 A director of NOFPA testified that their interpretation of rule No. 7, coupled with the basic purpose of NOFPA (to insure consumers that the prod......
  • Wahl's Estate, Matter of, No. 4349-III-5
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 6 Mayo 1982
    ...weight. Langan v. Valicopters, Inc., 88 Wash.2d 855, 859, 567 P.2d 218 (1977); Kennedy v. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., 54 Wash.2d 766, 344 P.2d 1025 Determination of the intent of the contracting parties is to be accomplished by viewing the contract as a whole, the subject matter and objective ......
  • Prager's, Inc. v. Bullitt Co., No. 2--39430--1
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • 29 Diciembre 1969
    ...of Contracts § 235(e) (1932); [463 P.2d 222] 17 Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 274; Kennedy v. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., 54 Wash.2d 766, 344 P.2d 1025 (1959); Tone v. Parlaman, 154 Wash. 389, 282 P. 208 (1929); Nelson v. Western Steam Navigation Co., 52 Wash. 177, 100 P. 325 (1909); Doll v. Maravilas......
  • Poggi v. Tool Research & Engineering Corp., No. 39457
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 20 Febrero 1969
    ...if not controlling, weight. Fancher v. Landreth,51 Wash.2d 297, 317 P.2d 1066 (1957); Kennedy v. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co.,54 Wash.2d 766, 344 P.2d 1025 (1959); Topliff v. Topliff, 122 U.S. 121, 7 S.Ct. 1057, 30 L.Ed. 1110 (1887). And the courts, under the guise of construing[451 P.2d 301] or......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT