Miller v. Missouri Pac. Transp. Co., 5-740
| Decision Date | 31 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-740,5-740 |
| Citation | 283 S.W.2d 158,225 Ark. 475 |
| Parties | J. T. MILLER, Appellant, v. MISSOURI PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
O. D. Longstreth, Jr., Dave E. Witt and Joseph Brooks, Little Rock, for appellant.
Pat Mehaffy and Herschel H. Friday, Jr., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant, J. T. Miller, instituted this suit to enforce the terms of an alleged contract under which, it is contended, appellee, the Missouri Pacific Transportation Company, was obligated to give him permanent employment. The prayer was for specific performance of the alleged contract and for damages for the breach thereof for a period of one year. From an adverse ruling appellant prosecutes this appeal.
The alleged contract relied on by appellant consists principally of a memorandum from District Lodge 158, of which appellant was a member, to appellee, of a letter from appellee to said Lodge and of certain oral testimony. It is appellant's contention that the alleged contract was entered into for his benefit and that he has a right to sue thereon.
J. T. Miller at the age of approximately 55 years first entered appellee's employment in Little Rock as a laborer. On August 8, 1946, while in said employment, he was injured and as a result was confined to the hospital for 11 weeks and 3 days. After discharge he stayed at home and went back to the doctor every day for some time and then went back to work on February 1, 1947, but he was unable to stand on his feet for long periods of time or to do the heavy work to which he had been accustomed. At about the same time he filed a claim for compensation and received $20 per week for the time he had been unemployed or a total of $502.88 and his hospital bill for $735.13 was paid. He has never at any time since filed any further claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Ark.Stats. § 81-1301 et seq. When he was discharged from the hospital he was told to return if his injured leg or arm 'broke down'. After apppellant served as a laborer for a short while he was promoted to the status of an apprentice, and by combining his hours as a laborer and an apprentice he accumulated sufficient hours, under existing rules, to be again promoted. Consequently on December 3, 1949 he was made a mechanic, and he worked in this category at labor he was physically able to perform until November 29, 1951 when he was furloughed along with others because of a forced reduction in employment.
In September 1949 [while appellant was still an apprentice] negotiations began between District Lodge 158 and appellee, as apparently was usual each year, relative to working relations between the two. These negotiations terminated in an agreement on October 15, 1949 in St. Louis. At this time there was present, representing appellee, R. J. McDermott, Vice President; G. W. Marriott, General Manager; J. N. Henase; and R. C. Cheatham, Superintendent of Automotive Equipment. Representing District Lodge 158 was H. I. Hahn, General Chairman; D. C. Brown, Grand Lodge Representative for the International Association of Machinists; G. J. Ferguson, Committeeman; and J. I. Sharp, Local Chairman from Kansas City--now deceased.
During the last minutes of the final negotiations on October 15, as referred to above, Mr. Cheatham brought up the matter of Mr. Miller's status as an employee. It appears that at that time appellant was the only apprentice employee and that if he was immediately promoted to a mechanic he would be unable to hold his job because, at the time, there were unemployed mechanics in the Little Rock area who had more seniority than he had. It was then that Mr. Cheatham, who knew appellant and said he wanted to help him, suggested to the Union representatives that if they were willing for the company to promote appellant to a mechanic that appellee would try to work out some sort of a job that he could handle. Mr. Hahn stated: 'Well if the company is willing, it is a nice gesture on the company's part, and if they want to try to help the man, as far as we are concerned, if the management and the Local people at Little Rock can work out an arrangement whereby it will be satisfactory to them of course we will have no objection.' Mr. Cheatham stated that he would contact Mr. Woodyard, the Shop Superintendent at Little Rock, and see if appellee had enough work to make a job for appellant.
In accordance with the above arrangement representatives of Local Lodge 158 had a conference with Mr. Woodyard relative to appellant's status as an employee. This meeting resulted in a memorandum prepared by representatives of the Local Lodge, which reads as follows:
'What we mean by this seniority right is that by using Rule XVI in our agreement no one would have the right to disturb this man, other than men that come under the same rule.
'This is subject to approval by H. I. Hahn and D. C. Brown.'
The above memorandum was mailed to Mr. Cheatham in St. Louis. Mr. Cheatham's reply dated December 3, 1949, is as follows:
'In compliance with the attached as submitted by the local shop committee, Little Rock garage, concerning apprentice mechanic, Mr. J. T. Miller, if the proposal is accepted, it is understood that Mr. Miller will not be disturbed by the exercising of seniority and bidding, we will place him on a mechanic's hourly rate with the following duties, hours and days of rest:
[Here is set in detail the hours and nature of employment]
'Will you kindly advise with return of attached copies of this letter, affix your signature on each and retain one copy for your records?'
A copy of the above letter was returned to Mr. Cheatham indorsed as follows:
'Accepted & Agree:
'For Missouri Pacific Transpn. Co.
'By /s/ R. J. McDermott
'Vice President
International Association of Machinists
'By /s/ D. C. Brown
'Grand Lodge Representative
'By /s/ H. I. Hahn
'General Chairman.'
Appellant's employment was terminated by a letter dated ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scholtes v. Signal Delivery Service, Inc.
...or specific duration the employment contract is terminable at the will of either the plaintiff or employer. Miller v. Mo-Pac Transportation Co., 225 Ark. 475, 283 S.W.2d 158 (1955). Therefore any discharge, whether it be with or without cause cannot constitute a breach of contract. Tinnon v......
-
Halsell v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.
...v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 282 F.2d 773 (8th Cir. 1960). M.B.M. Co. v. Counce, 596 S.W.2d 681 (Ark.1980); Miller v. Missouri Pacific Transportation Co., 283 S.W.2d 158 (Ark.1955); Petty v. Missouri & Arkansas Railway, 205 Ark. 990, 167 S.W.2d 895, cert. denied, 320 U.S. 738, 64 S.Ct. 37,......
-
Kimble v. Pulaski County Special School Dist.
...adhered to this principle, that either party has an absolute right to terminate the relationship. Miller v. Missouri Pacific Transportation Company, 225 Ark. 475, 283 S.W.2d 158 (1955), Moline Lumber Company v. Harrison, 128 Ark. 260, 194 S.W. 25 (1917), St. Louis, I.M. and S.R. Company v. ......
-
Karr v. Townsend
...was terminable "at will" under Arkansas law. M.B.M. v. Counce, 268 Ark. 269, 596 S.W.2d 681 (1980); Miller v. Missouri Pacific Transportation Co., 225 Ark. 475, 283 S.W.2d 158 (1955). Plaintiff's employment was not under tenure or contract, nor was there any clearly implied promise of conti......