Sloan v. Journal Pub. Co.

Citation213 Or. 324,324 P.2d 449
PartiesG. M. SLOAN, Al Burns, Floyd Lansdon, John Quinn, John Siemens and Glenn Monismith, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. JOURNAL PUBLISHING COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Respondent, American Newspaper Guild, an unincorporated association, Portland Newspaper Guild, an unincorporated association. James Ferguson, Stanley Weber, Matt Kramer, J. Lynn Wykoff and Robert Abramson, Defendants-Appellants.
Decision Date23 April 1958
CourtSupreme Court of Oregon

Manley B. Strayer, Portland, argued the cause for defendant-respondent. With him on the brief were Henry T. Lowe, Jr., and Hart, Spencer, McCulloch, Rockwood & Davies, Portland.

Gunther F. Krause, Portland, argued the cause for plaintiffs-respondents. With him on the brief were Krause, Evans & Lindsay, and Dennis Lindsay, Portland.

Robert R. Rissman, Los Angeles, Cal., argued the cause for defendants-appellants. With him on the brief were Anderson, Franklin & Landye, Portland, and Irving Leuchter, Newark, N. J.

BRAND, Justice.

This is a suit by the plaintiffs, representing themselves and 63 other persons similarly situated, against the American Newspaper Guild and the Portland Newspaper Guild, unincorporated associations, and certain named individuals who are officers of one or the other of the guilds. The other defendant is the Journal Publishing Company, a corporation. Plaintiffs base their claim upon their alleged rights arising from contracts which they and those whom they represent have made with the Journal Publishing Company, hereinafter called the Journal. These contracts are described as 'Wholesale Dealer Agreements' under which the Journal agreed to sell copies of the Journal's newspaper to the dealers at wholesale and to give to each of them respectively exclusive territory within which to dispose of the papers at retail, and the dealers agreed to buy and pay for such papers and to promote the circulation of the paper in their respective districts. Plaintiffs ask for a decree enjoining the Journal from terminating or breaching those contracts and restraining the other defendants from forcing the Journal by threats of strike and picketing to terminate the contracts with plaintiffs.

The Journal filed an answer and cross complaint. The other defendants demurred to the complaint of plaintiffs and to the cross complaint of the Journal. The demurrers were overruled and the case was tried on the merits, based on general denials by the defendants other than the Journal. A decree was entered substantially in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. The defendants other than the Journal appeal. Hereafter we shall refer to the two guilds and their named officers as the 'defendants' and we shall refer to the other defendant simply as 'the Journal.' We deem it unnecessary to summarize the intricate allegations of the pleadings at this time. The issues will be made clear in our statement of the facts. In brief, the defendants claim rights under a contract of 30 November 1951 between the Journal and the Portland Guild, a labor union, and they assert that the wholesale dealers' agreements which were thereafter made between plaintiffs and the Journal violated the contract of 30 November 1951 between the Portland Guild and the Journal. The Journal, like the Light Brigade, rides between the opposing forces whose verbal cannon on left and right volley and thunder against it. It seeks in substance a declaratory judgment defining its position with the plaintiffs on one side, and with the union on the other. The case is complicated by the fact that the dispute between the Journal and the defendant union was submitted to arbitration to which plaintiffs were not parties, and an award was rendered favoring the defendant union.

We turn to the transcript, consisting of 950 pages, and the exhibits, half a hundred in number. We shall, for brevity, employ the word 'plaintiffs' as including not only the six men named in the title as plaintiffs, but also the 63 others similarly situated, who are represented by the six named persons.

The American Guild, sometimes called the International, is a trade union under charter from the C.I.O., and is the parent organization of the Portland Guild. Robert Abramson is a representative of the American Guild, and at the request of the Portland Guild, has acted as their representative in negotiations with the Journal.

The contract of 30 November 1951 with its amendments is in evidence. It is a collective bargaining agreement between the Portland Guild and the Journal, and it reads, in part, as follows:

'This Agreement, made and entered into this 30th day of November, 1951, between the Journal Publishing Company, hereinafter referred to as the Publisher, and the Portland Newspaper Guild, a local chartered by the American Newspaper Guild, hereinafter referred to as the Guild for itself and on behalf of all the employes in the following unit within the Circulation Department of the Publisher, except those excluded from this agreement, Witnesseth:

'That the parties hereto have agreed as follows:

'The unit shall consist of all regular employes in the Circulation Department specifically including City District Managers, Suburban and Country District Managers, Junior District Managers, Portland Dealermen and inside office workers in the Circulation Department, but excluding the Circulation Manager, City Circulation Manager, Home Delivery Manager, Supervisors, Circulation Promotion Manager, Country Circulation Manager, Assistant Country Circulation Manager, head of Dealer Department, Office Manager, Confidential Secretary to the Circulation Manager, Extra, Temporary and Part-time employes, including solicitors, all circulation employes who work outside the corporate limits of the city of Portland with the exception of Suburban and Country District Managers and Junior District Managers and members of all craft unions contemporaneously active in the plant of the Publisher.' (Italics ours.)

The contract then provides for continued membership in the Guild as a condition of continued employment, salary schedules, classifications, hours of labor, dismissals, dismissal pay, vacations, and the like. The contract also provides for a 'Grievance Committee' and sets forth the procedure for 'Adjustment of Disputes' by arbitration.

Chronologically, the first event of importance is the collective bargaining agreement between the Portland Guild and the Journal, but logically, in the consideration of the issues of this suit, we must commence with the facts on which the plaintiffs base their claim for relief. Prior to the execution of the wholesale dealers agreements between the plaintiffs and the Journal, the plaintiffs had been employees of the Journal, and some of them had been covered by the collective bargaining agreement. In the fall of 1952 some of the employees approached the Journal and requested 'buyer-seller contracts' under which they would buy newspapers from the Journal and resell to carrier boys and retail dealers. At different times, but subsequent to 1 October 1952, all of the plaintiffs had signed wholesale dealer agreements with the Journal. The negotiations between the 69 plaintiffs and the Journal took place while many of them were still employees of the Journal, but as a part of the negotiations it was understood and agreed that they could not be both employees and independent contractors at the same time, and as a part of the transaction every one of the 69 who was an employee tendered to the Journal his resignation from the job which he held prior to the consummation of the wholesale dealer agreement.

The evidence establishes that the initiative in securing the wholesale dealer contracts was that of the plaintiffs and not that of the Journal. Eighteen of the plaintiffs executed dealer contracts during the last three months of 1952, and the rest of them executed such contracts on or before 1 January 1954. Prior to July 1952 there had been a number of changes in status whereby Town Manager employees had been changed to Town Manager dealerships on a buyer and seller basis. No objection was registered by the defendants to these early changes in status. In December 1952 a meeting of the Guild was held in which inquiry was made of some of the plaintiffs as to what they thought of their contract dealerships. The plaintiffs expressed their liking for the dealerships and discussion was had as to the attitude of the Guild toward the plaintiffs' dealerships and a vote was taken 'that the contract dealerships in the country and suburban was to be left alone and the Guild would have no interest in us.' There is corroborative testimony by witness Spence, a former official of the Guild and later a suprevisor in the Circulation Department, that in 1952 he attended a meeting of the circulation unit of the Guild at which the wholesale dealer contracts were discussed and it was voted by the majority 'that insofar as they were concerned that it was all right for the country circulation people to sign those agreements and withdraw from the local guild.'

It appears clear that many employees met with management as individuals, representing themselves and not acting as or for the Guild, and earnestly sought the dealership contracts. They were negotiating, not concerning the terms of employment, but concerning the termination of employment and the creation of a different status. After the country circulation was turned over to the independent dealers, the Portland District Managers and Dealermen voted to request similar dealerships. As a result, by the middle of 1953 the entire wholesale distribution of the Journal in the City of Portland came under the contract system along with the country dealers.

Mr. Haines, who represented the Journal, testified as a witness called by the plaintiff that objection to the dealership contracts first came to his attention in December 1952. A meeting was held...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Lundgren v. Freeman
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 27, 1962
    ...would be liable for wilful and malicious inducement of breach of contract. Oregon recognizes such an action. (Sloan v. Journal Publishing Co., 1958, 213 Or. 324, 324 P.2d 449; Ringler v. Ruby, 1926, 117 Or. 455, 244 P. 509, 46 A.L.R. 245; see Bliss v. Southern Pac. Co., 1958, 212 Or. 634, 3......
  • American Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Municipal Emps., Council 25 v. Wayne Cnty.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • March 24, 2011
    ...rule. See Orion Shipping & Trading Co. v. Eastern States Petroleum Corp., 312 F.2d 299 (C.A.2, 1963) ..., Sloan v. Journal Publishing Co., 213 Or. 324, 324 P.2d 449 (1958), Carpenters' Union v. Citizens' Committee to Enforce Landis Award, 333 Ill. 225, 164 N.E. 393 (1928). We, therefore, co......
  • Transnational Insurance Company v. Rosenlund
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • August 16, 1966
    ...breached the Transnational agreement. Bliss v. Southern Pac. Co., 212 Or. 634, 651, 321 P.2d 324 (1958); Sloan v. Journal Pub. Co., 213 Or. 324, 358, 324 P.2d 449 (1958); DeMarais v. Stricker, 152 Or. 362, 365, 53 P.2d 715 (1936). Likewise, it would appear that Rosenlund and MacTarnahan, as......
  • Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. Port of Portland
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • May 27, 1981
    ...622, 644, 297 P. 848 (1931), and cases cited therein; Gamble et ux v. Sukut, 208 Or. 480, 302 P.2d 553 (1956); Sloan v. Journal Publishing Co., 213 Or. 324, 324 P.2d 449 (1958); Harrell v. Dove Mfg. Co., 234 Or. 321, 381 P.2d 710 (1963), and Brewer v. Allstate Insurance Co., 248 Or. 558, 43......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT