Mayfield v. Thompson
Decision Date | 05 October 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 21836,21836 |
Citation | 262 S.W.2d 157 |
Parties | 24 Lab.Cas. P 67,859 MAYFIELD v. THOMPSON. |
Court | Missouri 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:
* * *
.
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: 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-
Jorgensen v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...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.
...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.
...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
...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......