Nissen v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America

• Decision Date: 21 January 1941
• Docket Number: 45168.
• Citation: 295 N.W. 858,229 Iowa 1028
• Parties: NISSEN et al. v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, STABLEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA et al.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

295 N.W. 858

229 Iowa 1028

NISSEN et al. v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, STABLEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA et al.

No. 45168.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

January 21, 1941

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeal from District Court, Black Hawk County; George W. Wood Judge.

Suit in mandamus directing the reinstatement of plaintiffs as members of the Union, the return of their membership cards, and judgment for damages for their wrongful suspension. From a judgment and decree for plaintiffs, the defendants appealed.

Affirmed.

C. I. McNutt and John Connolly, Jr., both of Des Moines, for appellants.

Swisher, Swisher & Cohrt, of Waterloo, for appellees.

BLISS Justice.

The plaintiffs were all members in good standing, with all dues and charges paid to June 1, 1939, and, with respect to two of them, to July 1, 1939. They were truck drivers or employees of McCoy Truck Lines, Inc., engaged in interstate and intrastate hauling of merchandise. Because of the discharge by the company of Verner Ball, a truck driver, a strike was called against it by defendants Cronin and Early of the Local Union at 4 p. m. on Friday, May 19, 1939. The next day the employing company filed its petition for injunctive relief against all parties who are named as defendants herein. A temporary writ was issued by the Clerk of the court, upon the order of Judge Lovejoy, directed to the defendants, stating: " You are hereby strictly enjoined and restrained from: enforcing the Strike Order issued as alleged in plaintiffs' petition * * *; or from calling a strike and enforcing (sic) and also a mandatory injunction requiring them to cancel and annul a strike call, if any has been issued involving any of the employees of the defendants (plaintiff), who are members of A. F. of L. Local Union No. 650, until further order of said District Court in the premises." The writ was served at 2:30 p. m. on May 20, 1939, upon Early, and at 5 p. m. of that day upon Cronin. He testified that upon the issuance and service of the injunction he immediately " cancelled and annulled the strike" and directed all the members of the union that he contacted that they had a right to go back on their jobs and drive their trucks. He further testified that " Hall, the manager of the Truck line, had a perfect right to call his men back to work after that, at any time." He also testified that the service of the injunction " ended my participation in the strike. As far as Local 650 was concerned, its members and officers, that ended the strike." The period of the strike, counting from the issuance of the strike order to the order of annulment, was from 4 o'clock in the afternoon of Friday, May 19, 1939 to Saturday, May 20, 1939 at 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon. Some of the plaintiffs may have been on the road when the strike order was given, but none of them took a truck out during the period of the strike. They did not return to work until they were called by their employer and told that the strike was off because of the injunction, and directed to resume their work. This they did. By agreement of the parties to the injunction suit it was settled and an order of court dismissing it and quashing the writ was entered on Monday May 22, 1939.

On May 27, 1939, the following registered letter, on the stationery of the Local Union, was mailed to the addressees, to wit:

" Fred Nissen, G. R. Agnew, Dear Sir and Brother:

You are hereby notified to appear before the Executive Board of the Teamsters and Chauffeurs Local No. 650 of Waterloo, Iowa, Wednesday Night May 31, 1939, at 7:30 P. M. at 400 W. Park Ave., for violation of the constitution of the International Union of which you are a member. (Italics ours.) The constitution provides that whether or not you are present at your hearing, your case will be heard and a penalty will be set for your violation. We advise you to be present to defend yourself.

Fraternally yours,

Ed Early,-Sec. & Treas.,

Teamsters and Chauffeurs,

Local No. 650, Waterloo, Iowa."

Each of the other plaintiffs received an identical letter, about the same date. Nissen was about to leave with his truck for Chicago when he received his letter, and he telephoned Early and asked for a postponement of his hearing for a day or two until his return. Early refused the request but never told the Executive Board anything about it. None of the plaintiffs had, or had ever been given, copies of the constitution and by-laws. No writing specifying the charges against any of the plaintiffs, nor any written charge of any kind was given to any of them at any time, although Section 92 of the constitution provides: " Any member or Local in good standing, or the General Executive Board (of the International), may prefer charges in writing, setting forth the facts constituting such charges . Charges against a member shall be preferred in duplicate to the Executive Board of the Local Union. It shall notify the accused by registered letter containing a copy of the charges and the time and place set for the trial, and give the defendant at least two weeks to prepare for trial, but charges for violation of Sections 88 and 90 shall be tried as there prescribed. * * *" (Italics are ours.)

There was no compliance with this section. No copy of any charge was produced, either duplicate or original, though demand was made for such production at the trial. No officer of the Union or member of the Board, as a witness, could recall of ever having seen a written charge, or the name of any person who made such a charge. When Early wrote the letters to Agnew, Nissen, and the other plaintiffs, he had no written record of any motion, resolution, or authorization from the Executive Board directing him to do so. He said it was on a vote on a motion, but he had no record or recollection of the vote or who made the motion.

Section 90 of the Constitution is as follows:

" Any member who knowingly goes to work or remains in the employment of any person, firm or corporation whose men are on strike or locked out, unless he has permission of the International, the Joint Council or his Local Union, may be tried by the Executive Board of his Local Union, on written charges by giving him written notice of the charges and the time and place of trial, allowing a reasonable time for the defendant to reach the place set for trial . (Italics are ours.) If he does not answer trial, the Executive Board may proceed in his absence, and if he is found guilty he shall be punished by suspension, which shall take effect on the date of the commencement of the offense, at which time he forfeits all rights, privileges and benefits in the organization.

He may appeal to the Joint Council, but pending the appeal the verdict is binding."

There is testimony that this section was read at the hearings of the plaintiffs. They were asked why they went back to work and each replied that he thought he had a perfect right to do so since the strike was annulled or suspended by the order of the Court. They were asked to step out of the room and on being recalled were told that they were suspended, and their membership cards should be turned in. Agnew testified: " They took my card and told me when they saw fit to give it back they would, if they saw fit." Plaintiff George Oldenburger testified: " I had my dues paid up to June 1, 1939. After they pulled my card, I went to Mr. Early and asked if I could keep paying on my card or keep paid up and he said No, that I lost all of my rights." Two others of the McCoy truckers, Hall and Carter, were also called to the hearings. Like the plaintiffs, they had also taken out trucks after the injunction, and if the plaintiffs had offended, these two were just as guilty. As the plaintiff Long and Carter left the hearing, Long asked Carter if they had suspended him, and on being told that they had not, Long went back to the hearing and asked why they had taken his card and not Carter's. He testified: " They told me Carter was a stronger union man than I was."

The so-called trials of plaintiffs were held on May 29, May 31, and June 1, 1939. The notice to each of them was about two days. The minutes of the Executive Board for each of these meetings showed the following entry as to each man and each case, with the exception of the name of the accused: " Decisions: In trials of (McCoy & Co.) drivers who were charged with violations of Section No. 90 of our International Constitution and By-Laws. Chas. Long. To be suspended indefinitely. To be reinstated at such time as the Executive Board sees fit." (Italics ours.)

On the 14th day of December, 1938, the defendant Union, International and Local, executed what is termed an " Over-The-Road-Motor-Freight Articles of Agreement," effective October 1, 1938 to and including October 31, 1939, with the McCoy Truck Lines, Inc., covering the wages and working conditions of the members of Local No. 650 in the employ of the McCoy Company. Article 1 thereof is as follows: " The Union shall be the sole representatives of those classifications of employees covered by this agreement in collective bargaining with the employer. Only members of the Union or men eligible for membership may be hired . (Italics are ours.) The employer shall call the Union for additional men when required provided, however, that if the Union does not have suitable men available, a non-member should be hired with the understanding that he must make immediate application for membership in the Union and shall work under the provisions of this agreement. Any person newly employed shall be so employed only on a thirty-day trial basis, during which time he shall either be dismissed without further recourse or placed on the regular seniority list."

Plaintiffs filed their petition...