Overnite Transp. Co. v. International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, 245

• Decision Date: 02 May 1962
• Docket Number: No. 245,245
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: , 50 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2377, 45 Lab.Cas. P 17,646 OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA.

Page 277

125 S.E.2d 277

257 N.C. 18, 50 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2377,

45 Lab.Cas. P 17,646

OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA.

No. 245

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 2, 1962

Blakeney, Alexander & Machen, by J. W. Alexander, Jr., Ernest W. Machen, Jr., Charlotte, for plaintiff, appellee.

Robinson, Jones & Hewson, Hunter M. Jones, Francis M. Fletcher, Jr., Charlotte, for defendant, appellant.

David Previant, Milwaukee, Wis., Herbert S. Thatcher, Washington, D. C., Edwin Pearce, John S. Patton, Joseph Jacobs, Atlanta, Ga., of counsel.

HIGGINS, Justice.

Before us are 1,500 pages of record, exhibits and briefs. The defendant's assignments of error alone cover 165 pages of the record. They are based on 484 exceptions taken during the course of the long and hotly contested trial. Review in detail is not indicated. Procedural questions involving the service of process and motion to postpone the trial have been considered. They are without merit.

The plaintiff instituted this civil action in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County to recover damages, both actual and punitive, alleged to have resulted from a strike and secondary boycott called by the defendant in an unlawful effort to compel the plaintiff to sign a union labor contract with plaintiff's employees. The plaintiff alleges its business 'affects interstate commerce within the meaning of the Labor Management Relations Act.' (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) Section 187(a) provides: 'It shall be unlawful, for the purposes of this section only, in an industry or activity affecting commerce, for any labor organization to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to * * * transport * * * any goods, articles, materials, or commodities * * * where an object thereof is--* * * (2) forcing or requiring any other employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees unless such labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of section 159 of this title; * * * (b) Whoever shall be injured in his business or property by reason of any violation of subsection (a) of this section may sue therefor in any district court of the United States * * * or in any other court having jurisdiction of the parties, and shall recover the damages by him sustained and the cost of the suit. ' (Note: Section 187(a) seems to have been amended effective September 14, 1959, a date subsequent to the conduct complained of.)

The right to maintain the action and the jurisdiction of the State court to hear it arise by congressional grant. In fixing the rights and liabilities of the parties, the Superior Court on the trial, and this Court on appeal, must accept the interpretation the Supreme Court of the United States has placed upon the Acts of Congress here involved. Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Section 2; Constitution of North Carolina, Article I, Sections 3 and 5; State v. Davis, 253 N.C. 86, 116 S.E.2d 365; Constantian v. Anson County, 244 N.C. 221, 93 S.E.2d 163; Norris v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 174 N.C. 92, 93 S.E. 465.

Three basic questions are presented by the assignments of error: (1) The liability of International for the damages which proximately resulted from the strike. (2) Sufficiency of the evidence of actual damages to support the jury's finding. (3) Sufficiency of the pleadings and evidence to support an award of punitive damages. Discussion of these questions will necessarily involve the challenged portions of the court's charge with respect to them.

Its constitution states: The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., shall consist of an unlimited number of local unions chartered by International. The stated purpose is 'To organize under one banner all workmen engaged in the craft, and to educate them to cooperate in every movement which tends to benefit the organization. * * * This organization has jurisdiction over all teamsters, chauffeurs, warehousemen and helpers; all who are employed on or around * * * automobiles, trucks, trailers, and all other vehicles hauling, carrying or conveying freight, merchandise, or materials. ' So complete is International's control over local unions that it may suspend the local charter and place the locals in trusteeship under the direct supervision of International's president. Indeed, even in this case, two of the locals, No. 55 and No. 391, involved in this strike, were in trusteeship, operating under the direct authority of James R. Hoffa, International President.

The evidence shows an agent of the union sent out 'hot cargo' letters and addressed members of locals, particularly employed by Roadway Express, requesting them not to handle exchange freight for Overnite. The contribution to the expenses of maintaining the strike made by International, the active participation of its Locals Nos. 55 and 391, under trusteeship, and by its Joint Council No. 9, sufficiently show that International was using the locals as its hands and arms to carry on the strike throughout the area according to plans which originated in its own head. N.L.R.B. v. Local 135, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 7 Cir., 267 F.2d 870, Certiorari denied, 361 U.S. 914, 80 S.Ct. 258, 4 L.Ed. 2d 184, Rehearing denied, 361 U.S. 945, 80 S.Ct. 406, 4 L.Ed.2d 365; Dairy Distributors, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 8 Utah 2d 124, 329 P.2d 414, Certiorari denied, 360 U.S. 909; United Mine Workers of America v. Patton, 4 Cir., 211 F.2d 742, 47 A.L.R. 850, Certiorari denied, 348 U.S. 824, 75 S.Ct. 38, 99 L.Ed. 649.

The evidence offered at the trial sufficiently established a principal-agency relationship between International and its local unions in fomenting the strike in order to force plaintiff, an unorganized freight carrier, to enter into an employment contract with the union. There is not a suggestion that the union had been designated or certified as a proper bargaining agent for plaintiff's employees. With respect to the principal-agency relationship, Judge Pless charged the jury:

'Now, then coming to the first issue: Was the plaintiff, referring to Overnite Transportation Company, damaged by the wrongful acts of the defendant, as alleged in the Complaint? Now, that issue, ladies and gentlemen, will depend upon several factors. In the first place, the defendant, and you will remember that there is nobody here as party to this case except International Brotherhood which I have referred to as the union in the charge, is the only defendant, and it could be held responsible for what was done by others only in the event this was done in law as agent of the union. * * * To give you what is meant by agency, it is the relation which results where one party called the 'principal' authorizes another party, called an 'agent' to act for him or it. The relationship of principal and agent may be created by word of mouth, writing or implied, by consent or acquiescence. A servant is an agent of his master, to deal more generally with things rather than with persons. The distinguishing difference between an agent and servant is that an agent can contract for his principal and bind his principal contractually, whereas a servant cannot so bind in contract his master. Both principal and master are liable for the torts of their agents and servants when acting in the scope of their employment.

'A person is responsible for not only his own acts, but for the acts of his employees or his agent when they are done within the scope of their employment and in furtherance of the business which is entrusted to them. The test of the liability, in all cases, depends upon the question whether the injury was committed by the authority of the master, expressly conferred or fairly implied from the nature of the employment and the duties incident to it. The simple test is whether they were acts within the scope of his employment, not whether they were done while prosecuting the master's business, but whether they were done by the servant in furtherance thereof, and were such as may fairly be said to have been authorized by him.'

The parol testimony and the exhibits, interpreted in the light of International's constitution, clearly indicate the cords which joined the many locals together in the strike effort, binding them to act in close concert throughout the four states, were manipulated by International. The evidence was sufficient to warrant the jury in finding the plaintiff was damaged by defendant's wrongful acts.

The second question presents a somewhat more difficult problem. For proof of its actual damages, Overnite relied upon the testimony of its vice president and general manager and accounting supervisor, Mr. P. S. Simmons. After completing business college training and a course in financing, he became bookkeeper and cashier of Motor Transit Company, Raleigh. He was appointed terminal manager and then traffic manager dealing with cost analysis.

Upon returning from service he accepted employment by the North Carolina Utilities Commission and traveled throughout the State instructing motor carriers as to the method of keeping records, checking costs, and making the reports required by the Commission. He testified before the Commission in matters involving...