McBride v. Beaumont City Lines, Inc.
| Citation | 356 S.W.2d 395 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 6389,6389 |
| Parties | Roy McBRIDE, Appellant, v. BEAUMONT CITY LINES, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Sample & Walker, Beaumont, for appellant.
Strong, Pipkin, Strong & Nelson, Beaumont, for appellee.
Our former opinion of January 11, 1962 affirming the trial court's action in sustaining appellee's plea in abatement is withdrawn and the present substituted therefor.
Appellant, Roy McBride, quit his job with appellee, Beaumont City Lines, Inc., November 28, 1958. On November 27, 1959, he brought suit against appellee for its refusal to give him vacation pay and unpaid wages, together with attorneys' fees. The trial court, in due time and order, sustained appellee's plea in abatement and dismissed appellant's cause of action, hence this appeal.
The plea in abatement set forth, and alleged, that appellant's suit was barred by reason of his failure to comply with the following grievance provisions of a Collective Bargaining Agreement existing between the parties:
'Section 2 * * *
'First: No grievance shall be entertained or considered unless it is presented in writing----
'(a) Within ten (10) days inclusive after the incident occurred which gave rise to the controversy involving the interpretation or application of the terms of employment as herein set forth; or'
* * *
* * *
These provisions were followed by rather extensive provisions providing for the procedure and settlement of differences by arbitration in the event such differences were not worked out under the grievance provisions.
The provision proving for ten days notice was clearly complied with by appellant. Approximately two weeks after quitting his job he was informed by appellee that he had no further pay or benefits due him. This was the first knowledge appellant had of such position. Within ten days thereafter he made written demand through his attorney of his claims against appellee. Approximately twenty-five days thereafter appellee replied by letter to said attorney, the substance of said letter being to deny any and all claims of appellant.
The ten days notice provision having been complied with by appellant, we hold that the clear intendment of Subsection Second of Section 2 of the foregoing Grievance provisions is that after receiving proper notice it then became the duty and responsibility of appellee, if it wished to avail itself of said provisions, to present said grievance to 'the ASSOCIATION'S Grievance Committee and an official or officials of EMPLOYER designated by EMPLOYER within not more than three (3) days, after EMPLOYER receives such grievance.' This, according to the evidence, appellee did not do.
The law is clear that one seeking recovery against an employer in these circumstances must pursue the procedure prescribed by the grievance provisions of the working agreement prior to resort to the courts. Wyatt v. Kansas City...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Monsanto Co.
...redress. Republic Steel Corporation v. Maddox, 379 U.S. 650, 85 S.Ct. 614, 13 L.Ed.2d 580 (1965); McBride v. Beaumont City Lines, Inc., 356 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1962, writ dism'd). An employee should not be allowed to sidestep available grievance procedures, since if such proce......
-
Arrington v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.
...way, leaving the question of liability for such loss to be determined, if necessary, by the courts'". Also, see McBride v. Beaumont City Lines, Tex.App., 356 S.W.2d 395; Tejas Development Co. v. McGough Bros., 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 276; and 5 Am.Jur.2d 520 (Sec. 3) at page The Court therefore co......