Masetta v. National Bronze & Aluminum Foundry Co.
| Decision Date | 29 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 33203,33203 |
| Citation | 159 Ohio St. 306,50 O.O. 301,112 N.E.2d 15 |
| Parties | , 50 O.O. 301 MASETTA v. NATIONAL BRONZE & ALUMINUM FOUNDRY CO. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A court of equity will not in a class action, by means of mandatory injunction, decree specific performance of an employment contract negotiated between an employer and a union representing its employees, where the issue involves the respective rights of seniority of the employees.
2. A court of equity will not, by means of mandatory injunction, decree specific performance of a labor contract existing between an employer and its employees so as to require the employer to continue any such employee in its service or to rehire such employee is discharged.
3. The fact that a labor contract was negotiated by a labor union on behalf of the employees does not give rise to a right in one or more of such employees to maintain a class action for equitable relief because of discharge of one or more of such employees in alleged violation of the seniority or other provisions of such contract.
4. Employees who claim to have been discharged by their common employer in violation of a labor agreement, negotiated with their employer in their behalf by a labor union, can not be joined as plaintiffs under Section 11257, General Code, or be made plaintiffs under the rule of virtual representation, in an action against such employer for damages resulting to each from such discharge, where the damages suffered by such employees vary because of differences in rights of seniority, rates of pay, rights to vacation pay, overtime, premium time or other incidents of their employment.
This action arose in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. In the amended petition filed May 8, 1950, it is alleged that the plaintiff is a member and an officer of the International Union, United Auto Workers of America, A. F. of L., Local No. 714; that said union, through said local, is the sole collective bargaining unit agreed upon between the defendant and said union; that the plaintiff was, at all times referred to, an employee of defendant, which is a manufacturing corporation engaged in the business of casting aluminum and other metal molds, in Cleveland, Ohio; that this action is brought 'in his own behalf and for and in behalf of other employees, members of said local union, and within said bargaining unit'; and 'that said employees are too numerous to bring in court and that it would be impracticable to do so and that he and such other employees have a common interest in the subject matter of this cause of action.'
The petition quotes several provisions of a collective bargaining agreement between the defendant and its employees, dated December 16, 1946, relating to seniority rights and privileges of employees. It is charged that on or about January 23, 1948, while said agreement was in force, the defendant, in violation of said agreement, 'laid off from its employ plaintiff and its entire complement of maintenance and production employees who constitute said bargaining unit; that less than three weeks thereafter * * * it hired new workers and members of its supervisory staff to replace and takes the jobs of plaintiff and said other employees.'
Plaintiff says that he and said other employees have suffered serious damages, irreparable injuries and great loss of wages and will continue to suffer loss of wages, bonuses, vacation pay and seniority rights, and that no adequate remedy at law exists.
The prayer which is by plaintiff 'in his own behalf and in behalf of other such employees having a common interest herein' makes five requests. The first is that the defendant be required to answer five interrogatories attached to the petition. Those interrogatories call for statements covering the period of January 23, 1948, to April 30, 1949 (the approximate date of filing of the original petition), as to the number of men employed in maintenance and production, the number of new employees hired, work assigned to supervisory employees, and overtime and premium time of production and maintenance employees.
The second and third branches of the prayer are as follows:
'(2) That it permanently enjoin defendant corporation from the further retention and/or employment of its present complement of maintenance and production employees.
'(3) That defendant corporation be enjoined to forthwith restore plaintiff and other said employees who constitute the said bargaining unit and who qualify pursuant to the seniority provisions of said agreement as quoted above, to their jobs as employees of defendant with full seniority benefits and other rights as would have accrued to them under the aforesaid agreement between defendant and said union but for the above described unlawful breach thereof by defendant corporation.'
The fourth asks an accounting for all wages, bonuses, piecework earnings and vacation monies which would have been due plaintiff and said other employees for the period since January 23, 1948.
Then follows a prayer for damages in the sum of $60,000.
The petition does not state the name of anyone of the 'other employees' in whose behalf the action purports to be brought.
Defendant's amended answer, filed February 6, 1951 as a first defense, avers 'that this court has no jurisdiction over the action herein and the subject matter thereof.' The answer then denies that defendant 'is engaged in the business of casting aluminum and other material molds and says that from the period of January 23, 1948, to July 1, 1950, it was engaged in the development of a frozen mercury precision casting process and that since July 1, 1950, it is no longer engaged in the active development of said mercury process and says that since said date it no longer has any employees of any kind.'
The answer denies that the union named was the sole collective bargaining agent for defendant's employees; that plaintiff is a member in good standing and an officer of said union; that plaintiff and other employees of defendant have a common interest in the subject matter of this action; that the collective bargaining agreement was in effect after November 1, 1947, or that it was in effect after defendant went out of the sand-casting business and shut down its plant on January 23, 1948; and that any new workers or supervisory staff members were hired to take the jobs of plaintiff and other members of his union after January 23, 1948, or that after that date any maintenance or production jobs were available for the type of work which plaintiff and other members of the union performed when defendant was engaged in producing almuinum castings. The answer alleges that from January 23, 1948, to July 1, 1950, the defendant was engaged solely in experimental and development work on a frozen mercury precision casting process known as the Mercast process in which work it employed only laboratory technicians, metallurgists and employees having educational and technical requirements far in excess of the requirements for the type of jobs included in the alleged agreement; that the plaintiff and the members of the bargaining unit of said local union are not qualified by education or experience to handle such technical development and research work; that since July 1, 1950, defendant is not engaged in any active business and has no employees of any kind; and that plaintiff is entitled to no equitable relief or damages.
The pleadings do not reveal the number of employees claimed to be involved in the issues, but in argument it was stated that prior to January 23, 1948, the defendant employed approximately 500 persons in 58 classifications, and that subsequent to that date it employed only 20 persons.
On May 1, 1951, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition for the reason that the court does not have jurisdiction over the action and the subject matter thereof.
Upon argument, no evidence having been heard, the motion of defendant to dismiss was sustained. The plaintiff not desiring to plead further,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Radio Corp. of America v. Local 780, Intern. Alliance of Theatrical Stage Emp. and Moving Picture Mach. Operators of U.S. and Canada, AFL-CIO
...110 N.E.2d 424; Masetta v. Nat'l. Bronze & Aluminum Foundry Co., 1952, Ohio App., 107 N.E.2d 243; reversed on other grounds, 159 Ohio St. 306, 112 N.E.2d 15; Foley Const. Co. v. Local 100, 1960, Ohio Com.Pl., 172 N.E.2d 170; General Building Contractors Ass'n v. Local No. 542, 1952, 370 Pa.......
-
Colbert v. Coney Island, Inc.
...to above and more recently in State ex rel. Gerspacher v. Coffinberry, 157 Ohio St. 32, 104 N.E.2d 1, and Masetta v. National, etc., Foundry Co., 159 Ohio St. 306, 112 N.E.2d 15, reversing Ohio App., 107 N.E.2d 243. The demurrer was therefore properly sustained upon the ground of misjoinder......
-
Podlesnick v. Airborne Exp., Inc.
..."lack of mutuality" objection to specific performance of personal service contracts, figure into this case. See Masetta v. Foundry Co., 159 Ohio St. 306, 112 N.E.2d 15 (1953). Plaintiff further attempts to distinguish the rule against specific performance enunciated in Felch by insisting th......
-
Dean v. Scott Paper Co., Southern Division, 1 Div. 478
...110 N.E.2d 424; Masetta v. Nat'l. Bronze & Aluminum Foundry Co., 1952, Ohio App., 107 N.E.2d 243; reversed on other grounds, 159 Ohio St. 306, 112 N.E.2d 15; Foley Const[ruction] Co. v. Local 100, 1960, Ohio Com.Pl., 172 N.E.2d 170; General Building Contractors Ass'n v. Local No. 542, 1952,......