Seegers v. Marx & Haas Clothing Co.

• Decision Date: 22 December 1933
• Parties: Martin C. Seegers, Appellant, v. Marx & Haas Clothing Company, a Corporation, the United Garment Workers of America, Otto Kaemmerer, Menter Frank, Harry Kelley, Nathan Block, Isidore Driben, Max Gold, Clarence Lang, Frank Fitzgerald, Harry Huber, Paul Knudson, Harry Voss
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

66 S.W.2d 526

334 Mo. 632

Martin C. Seegers, Appellant, v. Marx & Haas Clothing Company, a Corporation, the United Garment Workers of America, Otto Kaemmerer, Menter Frank, Harry Kelley, Nathan Block, Isidore Driben, Max Gold, Clarence Lang, Frank Fitzgerald, Harry Huber, Paul Knudson, Harry Voss

Supreme Court of Missouri

December 22, 1933

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Charles W Rutledge, Judge.

Affirmed.

R N. Rooks for appellant.

(1) The United Garment Workers of America provide that the board of trustees shall prosecute and bring suit at law and equity. Revised Statutes 1919, Section 1156, provide how voluntary organizations may sue through their trustees. Trustees of an association of an express trust authorizing them to sue as such under the above section must be a formal one as defined by Section 283 and need not be in writing in regard to the personal property. Weithuechter v. Miller, 208 S.W 39; 5 C. J. 1367, sec. 108; Lily v. Tobin, 15 S.W 618; Newton County Farmers' & Fruit-Growers' Exchange v. Railroad Co., 2 S.W.2d 125; Syz v. Milkwagon Drivers, 24 S.W.2d 1080; Mayes v. United Garment Workers of America, 6 S.W.2d 333; State ex rel. Home Savings v. Lee, 288 Mo. 676; Adams Express Co. v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 126 Mo.App. 471; Met. St. Ry. Co. v. Adams Express Co., 145 Mo.App. 371; Weichtuechter v. Miller, 208 S.W. 39; McEntyre v. Live Stock Shipping Assn., 11 S.W.2d 77; Bruns v. Drivers Union, 242 S.W. 419; United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 244; R. S. 1919, secs. 13268, 13271. (2) It is a fraternal association as pleaded in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the petition. Revised Statutes 1919, Sections 6398, 6402-29 and 9749, and have the right to incorporate under Sections 6409, 10264, 10267, 10284. 3 Words and Phrases, pp. 2942-43; Westerman v. K. P., 94 S.W. 470; Weithuechter v. Miller, 208 S.W. 39; O'Neill v. Grand Lodge Brotherhood Ry. Trainmen, 261 S.W. 128; Crebbs v. United Order of Foresters, 177 S.W. 766; Armstrong v. Modern Brotherhood of America, 149 S.W. 459; Mayes v. United Garment Workers, 6 S.W.2d 335; Hall v. Morrin, 293 S.W. 435; 5 C. J. 1634, sec. 101; Martin on Labor Unions, p. 386, sec. 313; State ex rel. v. Medical Society, 243 S.W. 341. (3) The petition alleges that the United Garment Workers of America is a trade union, has 177 local unions, 80,000 members and assets of $ 579,950.34. 12 C. J. 583, sec. 102; State v. K. C. Live Stock Exchange, 109 S.W. 675; Carter v. Oster, 112 S.W. 995; Heim Brewing Co. v. Belinder, 71 S.W. 691; Wales Miners Federation v. Glaxmorgan Coal Co., 2 Ann. Cas. 436; Hopkins v. Oxley Stave Co., 83 F. 912. (4) The petition states that the United Garment Workers of America has a constitution governing the international and local unions. 12 C. J. 543, sec. 5; Alcott Planing Mill v. Fuelle, 114 S.W. 1013; Lohse Door Co. v. Fuelle, 114 S.W. 997. (5) The petition alleges that plaintiff was illegally expelled from the United Garment Workers of America and was thereby damaged. Martin on Labor Unions, sec. 325, p. 397; Oakes on Organized Labor, p. 77, sec. 69; Mullin v. Seegers, 294 S.W. 745; Cruetcher v. Eastern Division ORC, 132 S.W. 307; St. Louis v. Thompson, 113 S.W. 144. (6) The petition alleges that plaintiff was employed at the Marx & Haas Clothing Company for a long time, in a lawful occupation, and that all the defendants conspired to have plaintiff discharged, and was thereby damaged. Oakes on Labor, p. 1089, p. 775, sec. 490, pp. 765, 766; 16 R. C. L. 414, sec. 3; Berry v. Donovan, 188 Mass. 353; Brennan v. United Hatters, 73 N. J. L. 729.

Barth & Baron for Marx & Haas Clothing Company.

(1) Plaintiff's petition is incoherent and presents no tangible or understandable issues and, therefore, the judgment sustaining the demurrer should be affirmed. Darrow v. Briggs, 261 Mo. 278. (2) Plaintiff does not allege that he was hired by Marx & Haas Clothing Company for a definite time. The law in Missouri is well settled that a contract to hire for an indefinite time is a hiring at will and may be terminated by either party at any time, in which event no action can be sustained for a wrongful discharge. Harrington v. Brockman Comm. Co., 107 Mo.App. 424, 81 S.W. 629; Brookfield v. Drury College, 139 Mo.App. 365, 123 S.W. 86; Douglas v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 297 S.W. 90. (3) Even if plaintiff had applied for admission to Local Union 229 of the United Garment Workers of America in September, 1927, and said local union for any reason would have refused to admit him into membership, plaintiff would have no right of recovery. The members of a labor union have a right to say whom they will admit to association with themselves, and cannot be compelled to admit others to membership, and the fact that one may suffer injury by reason of nonadmission to membership affords no ground upon which the court may decree his admission. The basis for refusal of admission is immaterial. The restriction might be grounded on citizenship, nationality, age, creed, profession, numbers, etc. This power is incident to their character as voluntary associations. Mayer v. Stonecutters, 47 N.J.Eq. 519, 20 A. 492; Greenwood v. Building Trades Council, 71 Cal.App. 159, 223 P. 823; Oakes on Organized Labor & Industrial Conflicts, sec. 42; Martin on Labor Unions, sec. 302. (4) It is well settled that an agreement between a union and an employer whereby the latter is to employ only members of the former is valid as not against public policy or in restraint of trade, and one not a member of the union who, because of the contract, is unable to obtain a job or whose discharge is brought about by such contract has no cause of action. Shinsky v. O'Neil, 232 Mass. 99, 121 N.E. 790; Reihing v. Electrical Workers, 94 N. J. L. 240, 109 A. 367; Jacobs v. Cohen, 183 N.Y. 207, 76 N.E. 5. (5) The allegations in plaintiff's petition that the defendants, through ill will toward plaintiff, maliciously, wickedly, etc., conspired to discharge plaintiff and exclude him from the United Garment Workers of America are merely conclusions of the pleader in that they present no facts and are therefore bad on demurrer and their truth is not admitted thereby. Ruggles v. International Assn. of Bridge, Structural, etc., Ironworkers, 52 S.W.2d 863; Root v. Anderson, 207 S.W. 255; Truax v. Bisbee Local 380, etc., 19 Ariz. 386, 171 P. 121; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Warren, 108 Misc. 680, 178 N.Y.S. 17; Goodman Bros., Inc., v. Ashton, 211 A.D. 769, 208 N.Y.S. 84; Stephen Peabody, Jr., v. Travelers Ins. Co., 205 N.Y.S. 538, 210 A.D. 661; Kisler v. Motion Picture Machine Operators, 26 Ohio App. 284, 159 N.E. 494. (6) Facts showing the performance of a condition precedent, or excusing nonperformance, must be alleged. Streib v. Local Lodge No. 27, 40 S.W.2d 520. (a) A denial of plaintiff's allegation that he was informed he could not join would merely put in issue the question whether he was informed. It would not raise the question whether he was so informed by the union or its proper representative because he does not allege the union informed him; therefore, a denial of plaintiff's allegation would be an immaterial traverse. Meeker v. Railroad, 255 S.W. 342; Nichols & Sheppard Co. v. Hubert, 150 Mo. 624, 51 S.W. 1031; Wrightsman Petroleum Co. v. Nesbit, 101 Okla. 48, 222 P. 957; Sebastian County Rd. Imp. Assn. v. Hocott, 141 Ark. 310, 217 S.W. 258; Winneshick Co. v. Allamakee Co., 62 Iowa 559, 17 N.W. 753.

John P. Leahy for United Garment Workers of America and others.

(1) The defendant, United Garment Workers of America, being a voluntary unincorporated association is not a suable entity. Mayes v. United Garment Workers of America, 320 Mo 10, 6 S.W.2d 335; Newton County Farmers' & Fruit-Growers' Exchange v. Ry. Co., 326 Mo. 617, 31 S.W.2d 804. (2) A voluntary unincorporated association cannot in the absence of statutory authority sue or be sued. Newton County Farmers' & Fruit-Growers' Exchange v. Ry. Co., 326 Mo. 617, 31 S.W.2d 804. (3) Voluntary associations exist under the common-law right of contract and are not entities having an existence apart from their members. C. J. 1336, sec. 6, p. 1369, sec. 118. (4) The powers and privileges of associations must be conferred by statute. Ruggles v. International Assn. of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, 52 S.W.2d 860. (5) The petition fails to state that the appellant ever made an insurance contract with the defendant, United Garment Workers of America, or that a policy or certificate was ever issued to him. Ruggles v. International Assn., supra. (6) The instant case is not a suit on an insurance contract, therefore the court has no jurisdiction of this case. Ruggles v. International Association, supra. (7) The averments in the petition are legal conclusions and not admitted by the demurrer. Ruggles v. International Assn. of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, 52 S.W.2d 863. (8) The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 344, 42 S.Ct. 570, does not apply to the instant case. Ruggles v. International Assn. of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, 52 S.W.2d 863. (9) A local union of a labor organization (which includes the members of that local) claiming that its charter has been improperly revoked must exhaust its remedy in the organization before resorting to the courts. O'Brien v. Musical Mut. Protective & Benevolent Union, 64 N.J.Eq. 525; Local Union No. 1006 v. Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers, 149 N.Y.S. 1025. (10) When the charter of a local union of a labor organization is revoked its members cease to be members of the general organization. The status of one seeking membership in a labor organization after its termination by the...