Mayfield v. Thompson

Decision Date05 October 1953
Docket NumberNo. 21836,21836
Citation262 S.W.2d 157
Parties24 Lab.Cas. P 67,859 MAYFIELD v. THOMPSON.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Thomas J. Cole, St. Louis, Ragland, Otto, Potter & Carson, Jefferson City, Leon P. Embry, California, for appellant.

Jo B. Gardner, Monett, Frank W. Hayes, Sedalia, for respondent.

BOUR, Commissioner.

A. C. Mayfield brought suit against Guy A. Thompson, trustee of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, to recover damages for his alleged wrongful discharge from defendant's employ. Verdict and judgment were for plaintiff in the sum of $5,292, and defendant has appealed.

From August, 1941 until September 2, 1945, plaintiff was employed as a brakeman by defendant, an interstate carrier subject to the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. Sec. 151 et seq. During the time of his employment there was in force a written collective bargaining contract between defendant and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, a labor organization of which plaintiff was a member. That organization was the bargaining representative of the class of defendant's employees to which plaintiff belonged. The written contract contained the following provisions:

'Article 51. Suspension and Discharge: Any trainman may be suspended from duty for a reasonable time, or for investigation of any alleged misconduct, or for violation of rules or orders, and may be discharged from the service of the Railroad for good and sufficient causes. These causes shall include intemperance, incompetency, habitual neglect of duty, gross violation of rules or orders, dishonesty or insubordination. For any of these causes they may be suspended by the Trainmaster and discharged by the Superintendent.

'Article 52. Investigation: Before a trainman is discharged, or suspended for a definite term, or notation is made against his record, for an alleged fault, he shall have a fair and impartial trial, at which he may have a trainman of his choice, selected from the Railroad's service, to represent him, who will be permitted to examine witnesses. He or his representative shall be furnished with a copy of the evidence brought out at such investigation, which will be the basis for the discipline administered. When suspended for investigation, such investigation shall be held within five days. If found innocent, he shall be paid at regular rates for time lost, and reinstated. * * * When a notation is entered against the record of a trainman he will be furnished a copy and will receipt for it. If the notation against his record is decided to be unjust it will be eliminated. * * *

'Article 53. Appeal: Any employee included under the provisions of this agreement who is dissatisfied with the decision of any officer of the Railroad shall have the right to appeal therefrom, in writing, to the General Manager, after having first submitted his case to the decision of the General Superintendent and to the Assistant General Manager'.

While in the employ of defendant, plaintiff was 'on the extra board' at Sedalia, Missouri, where he resided. Sedalia was a division point on defendant's eastern division. On August 27, 1945, plaintiff was suspended by Foster Sparks, defendant's trainmaster at Sedalia, on a charge of bring trainmaster at Sedalia, on a charge of being permission and missing a call for duty on August 25, 1945', in violation of Rule 703 of defendant's Uniform Code of Operating Rules; and he was notified that a hearing would be held on that charge August 29, 1945. Plaintiff attended the hearing or investigation, which was held at Sedalia before Trainmaster Sparks, on August 29, 1945. He was represented at the hearing by L. D. Powell, local chairman of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. G. F. Scheider, defendant's yard clerk or 'caller' at Sedalia, was the only witness produced by defendant. Plaintiff called no witnesses. Mr. Scheider and plaintiff were interrogated by Trainmaster Sparks and Mr. Powell. A transcript of the evidence adduced at the hearing was sent to W. H. Bailey, superintendent of defendant's eastern division, whose office was in Kansas City, Missouri. Plaintiff was discharged by Superintendent Bailey on September 2, 1945, and was promptly notified of his dismissal.

This suit was filed August 10, 1950, nearly five years after plaintiff was discharged. After the original petition had been twice amended, the cause was tried to a jury in March, 1952. Plaintiff conceded that he was given a fair hearing before the trainmaster in accordance with the terms of Article 52 of the collective bargaining contract. His theory of the case was that he had a cause of action against defendant because he was discharged without good and sufficient cause in violation of Article 51 of the contract. Our Supreme Court has recognized such a claim. See Craig v. Thompson, Mo.Sup., 244 S.W.2d 37; Wilson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 362 Mo. 1168, 247 S.W.2d 644; Annotation 18 A.L.R.2d 352, 367. As stated, the verdict and judgment were for plaintiff.

While the defendant's brief contains several assignments of error, we will discuss only one--namely, that the court erred in rejecting defendant's offer to prove by plaintiff, on cross-examination, that he had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies provided by Article 53 (set out above) of the collectibe bargaining contract. The record shows that defendant made such an offer and that it was rejected by the court. In support of the above contention, defendant cites Reed v. St. Louis S. W. R. Co., Mo.App., 95 S.W.2d 887, an action by a former employee of the defendant railroad company to recover damages for alleged wrongful discharge in violation of a collective bargaining contract. The St. Louis Court of Appeals reversed a judgment in favor of the plaintiff because he had failed to exhaust the administrative remedies provided by the contract. This case was decided in 1936. No other Missouri decision on the point has been found.

Plaintiff contends, as he did in the trial court, that he was not required to exhaust the remedies provided by Article 53, supra, as a prerequisite to suit in court for wrongful discharge. He argues that the decision of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, in the Reed case, is contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in Moore v. Illinois Central R. Co., 312 U.S. 630, 634, 636, 61 S.Ct. 754, 756, 85 L.Ed. 1089, and contrary to what the Supreme Court said of the Moore case in Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U.S. 239, 244, 70 S.Ct. 577, 580, 94 L.Ed. 795. He also cites Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. McCombs, 143 Tex. 257, 183 S.W.2d 716, and Earle v. Illinois Central R. Co., 25 Tenn.App. 660, 167 S.W.2d 15, 23. Plaintiff insists that since both of the parties to this suit were subject to the Railway Labor Act at all times here material, the ruling in the Moore case is controlling and precludes the application of state law in determining the effect of Article 53. He concludes that the trial court did not err in refusing defendant's offer of proof 'that plaintiff did not exhaust his rights of appeal through officials of appellant'.

In the last mentioned case, Moore, a member of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, brought suit for damages against the respondent railroad company in a Mississippi state court, claiming he had been wrongfully discharged contrary to the terms of a contract between the Trainmen and the railroad. The case was removed to a federal court, where Moore recovered a judgment. D.C., 24 F.Supp. 731. It appears that the contract of employment between Moore and the railroad was made in Mississippi and was performed in that state until the date of Moore's discharge. See 5 Cir., 112 F.2d 959. As stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court, the union-railroad contract contained 'a provision authorizing Moore to submit his complaint to officials of the railroad, offer witnesses before them, appeal to higher officers of the company in case the decision should be unsatisfactory,' etc., 312 U.S. 630, 635, 61 S.Ct. 754, 756. It was shown that moore had failed to exhaust the remedies afforded by that provision. Under the law of Mississippi, he was not required to exhaust those remedies in order to sustain his action for wrongful discharge. See Moore v. Illinois Central R. Co., 180 Miss. 276, 176 So. 593. The Railway Labor Act provides that disputes between an employee and a carrier 'shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes; but, failing to reach an adjustment in this manner, the disputes may be referred' to the Adjustment Board. 45 U.S.C.A. Sec. 153, subd. 1(i). In the Moore case the Supreme Court said: '* * * But we find nothing in that (Railway Labor) Act which purports to take away from the courts the jurisdiction to determine a controversy over a wrongful discharge or to make an administrative finding a prerequistite to filing a suit in court. * * * The District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals properly decided that petitioner (Moore) was not required by the Railway Laber Act to seek adjustment of his controversy with the railroad as a prerequisite to suit for wrongful discharge.' 312 U.S. 630, 634, 636, 61 S.Ct. 754, 756, 85 L.Ed. 1089.

There is no merit in plaintiff's contention that the ruling in the Moore case precludes the application of the law of Missouri in determining the effect of Article 53 of the contract in question; and there is nothing in Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., supra, that supports plaintiff's position. This is made clear in the opinion of the Supreme Court in the recent case of Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc., v. Koppal, 345 U.S. 653, 73 S.Ct. 906, 97 L.Ed. 1325, which was decided after the instant case was argued on appeal.

In that case the record showed that Koppal, a citizen of Kansas, was employed as a mechanic in Kansas City, Missouri, by Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc., a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Jorgensen v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1958
    ...Pullman Co., 68 F.2d 826 (8 Cir., 1934); Thompson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 113 F.Supp. 900 (D.C.Ala.1950); Mayfield v. Thompson, 262 S.W.2d 157 (Mo.App.Ct.1953); Barker v. Southern Pacific Co., 214 F.2d 918 (9 Cir., 1954); Peoples v. Southern Pacific Co., 139 F.Supp. 783 (D.C.D.O......
  • Payne v. Pullman Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 19, 1957
    ...Missouri law); Thompson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., D.C.Ala.1950, 113 F.Supp. 900 (applying the Alabama law); Mayfield v. Thompson, Mo.App.1953, 262 S.W.2d 157; Barker v. Southern Pacific Co., 9 Cir., 1954, 214 F.2d 918 (applying the California Counsel for plaintiff argues that the ......
  • Jenkins v. Wm. Schluderberg-T. J. Kurdle Co.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • July 23, 1958
    ...543 (employee could not compel arbitration of his grievance where union had decided that there was no merit to it); Mayfield v. Thompson, Mo.App.1953, 262 S.W.2d 157 (wrongful discharge hearing had been held); Payne v. Pullman Co., 1957, 13 Ill.App.2d 105, 141 N.E.2d 83; Harrison v. Pullman......
  • Tinnon v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • October 11, 1960
    ...754, 85 L.Ed. 410; Transcontinental & Western Air v. Koppal, 345 U.S. 653, 660-662, 73 S.Ct. 906, 97 L.Ed. 1325, and Mayfield v. Thompson, Mo.App., 262 S.W.2d 157. The plaintiff's right to damages in a case such as this, however, is dependent, as this court has described it, upon "state con......
  • 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