Mile Branch Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of America, 14585.

• Decision Date: 14 May 1959
• Docket Number: No. 14585.,14585.
• Citation: 266 F.2d 919
• Parties: MILE BRANCH COAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

266 F.2d 919 (1959)

MILE BRANCH COAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Appellee.

No. 14585.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued February 25, 1959.

Decided May 14, 1959.

Mr. Samuel L. Goldstein, Pittsburgh, Pa., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Thurman Hill, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. John J. Wilson, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Harrison Combs, Willard P. Owens and William E. Rollow, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, BAZELON and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

BAZELON, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, Mile Branch Coal Company, is a coal mine operator whose employees are members of a local union affiliated with the United Mine Workers of America, International Union, appellee. Mile Branch brought this suit to recover damages from the International for injuries resulting from a strike by the local. The complaint charged that International and its District No. 6 had entered into a labor-management contract with Mile Branch and other mine operators;¹ that International had expressly guaranteed to preserve the integrity of the contract, which included provisions specifying procedures for settlement of disputes arising thereunder;² that such a dispute arose between Mile Branch and its employees; and that officers of District No. 6, acting as agents of the International, not only had failed to seek enforcement of the settlement provisions, but had encouraged a walkout at the mine in express violation of those provisions.³ There was no allegation that International had been notified of the dispute. International's answer included, inter alia, a denial that officers of District No. 6 were its agents.

When the case came on for trial, the trial judge ruled that International's liability for the alleged action of the District was a threshold issue separable from the remainder of the case. He therefore required Mile Branch to limit its proof at the outset to that issue, on the theory that it would not be necessary to reach other issues if the evidence failed to establish, prima facie, the District's agency to act for the International.

To sustain this burden, Mile Branch introduced the Constitutions of the International Union and of District No. 6; the governing agreement between the United Mine Workers and Mile Branch; and testimony by Mile Branch's mine foreman (1) detailing the circumstances underlying the strike which is the subject of this suit, and (2) describing the practice followed at Mile Branch in attempting to resolve any labor disputes which arose at the mine — through direct and immediate recourse to District No. 6 officials. At the conclusion of this evidence, International moved for a directed verdict. The trial judge, relying heavily on United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co., 1922, 259 U.S. 344, 42 S.Ct. 570, 66 L.Ed. 975, ruled that Mile Branch had failed to establish the existence of an agency relationship, and thereupon granted the motion. This appeal followed.

We think the evidence established a prima facie case that the officers of District No. 6 were agents of the International with authority to enforce the settlement provisions of the contract.

The evidence showed that the President and Secretary-Treasurer of District No. 6 are appointed to their posts by the President of the International, and that their salaries are paid by the International. The only appointments which the International's constitution authorizes its President to make fall into two categories: (1) specified International posts,⁴ and (2) "such organizers, field and office workers as may * * * be necessary to conduct the affairs of the International Union."⁵ In the absence of countervailing...