Sowels v. Laborers' Intern. Union of North America

• Decision Date: 31 March 1982
• Docket Number: Docket No. 52394
• Citation: 317 N.W.2d 195,112 Mich.App. 616
• Parties: Alfred L. SOWELS and Alice Sowels, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee, and Williard Lee Hammac, Wayman Denver Gray, Gary Ellison, Kenneth Raines, and International Laborers' Union Local 465, Defendants. 112 Mich.App. 616, 317 N.W.2d 195, 99 Lab.Cas. P 55,433
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 195

317 N.W.2d 195

Alfred L. SOWELS and Alice Sowels, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

Williard Lee Hammac, Wayman Denver Gray, Gary Ellison,

Kenneth Raines, and International Laborers' Union

Local 465, Defendants.

Docket No. 52394.

112 Mich.App. 616, 317 N.W.2d 195, 99 Lab.Cas. P 55,433

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 19, 1981.

Decided Oct. 23, 1981.

Released for Publication March 31, 1982.

[112 MICHAPP 618] Raymond L. Krell, P.C. by Alan G. Davis, Detroit, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Miller, Cohen, Martens & Sugerman, P.C. by William L. Martens, Duane F. Ice, and John H. Willems, Detroit, for defendant-appellee Laborers' Inter. Union of North America.

Before T. M. BURNS, P. J., and HOLBROOK and GLASER ^*, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal an order of summary judgment entered pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(1), failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, in favor of defendant Laborers' International Union of North America (hereinafter the International).

Summary judgment under this sub-rule is proper only if, after an examination of the pleadings, and accepting plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations as true, a determination can be made that plaintiff's claim is "so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly sustain it". Gartside v. Young Men's Christian Assn., 87 Mich.App. 335, 338, 274 N.W.2d 58 (1978).

Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that in September [112 MICHAPP 619] of 1976, Alfred Sowels (hereinafter plaintiff), himself a member of defendant International Laborers' Union, Local 465 (hereinafter Local 465), was employed by a contractor in a supervisory position at the Enrico Fermi plant in Monroe, Michigan. Local 465 assigned 20 workers to the construction site, including defendants Hammac, Gray, Ellison, and Raines. Local 465's agent insisted that Sowels appoint Hammac as a foreman, and Sowels refused. Sowels warned Hammac about his refusal to continue working as instructed, to which Hammac exhibited a hostile and aggressive attitude. During the last week of September, 1976, Sowels laid off four of the workers from Local 465, including Hammac and Gray.

On October 1, 1976, as Sowels left his home, he was stopped and attacked by Hammac, Ellison, Gray, and Raines, who placed a blanket over his head and beat him. Among the injuries suffered by Sowels were extensive fractures of both legs, which left him permanently disabled.

Plaintiffs' complaint sought to hold the International liable on at least two theories of negligence. Plaintiffs' second amended complaint also sought to impose liability on the International on the basis that the International breached a contractual obligation owed plaintiff as a dues-paying member.

Plaintiffs allege that the International was negligent by first, failing to supervise and control Local 465 and its members, and second, failing to warn plaintiff of the violent propensities of members of Local 465. The issue here primarily involves whether the International owed plaintiff any duty to prevent the alleged harm. Whether such a duty exists is a legal question to be decided by the court and "is essentially a question of whether the relationship between the actor and the injured person [112 MICHAPP 620] gives rise to any legal obligation on the actor's part for the benefit of the injured person". Moning v. Alfono, 400 Mich. 425, 438-439, 254 N.W.2d 759 (1977) (footnote omitted). Where there is no legal duty, there can be no actionable negligence. Butrick v. Snyder, 236 Mich. 300, 306, 210 N.W. 311 (1926).

Plaintiffs' burden of establishing this element of negligence becomes substantially heavier in the face of section 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act which states:

"No officer or member of any association or organization, and no association or organization participating or interested in a labor dispute, shall be held responsible or liable in any court of the United States for the unlawful acts of individual officers, members, or agents, except upon clear proof of actual participation in, or actual authorization of, such acts, or of ratification of such acts after actual knowledge thereof." 29 U.S.C.A. Sec. 106.

This section was held applicable to tort claims in state courts arising out of labor disputes in United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 736-737, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1144-1145, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966). The policy underlying sec. 6 has been stated as follows:

"It has been clear to Congress for many years that imposition upon unions of vicarious liability for the unauthorized acts of individuals could easily mean the elimination of labor unions as a social institution in America. * * *.

"Irresponsible or violent acts by individual workers (or by agents provocateur) if automatically attributable to the union on the scene could, of course, serve to destroy it. But such vicarious liability is repugnant to due process of law." North American Coal Corp. v. Local 2262, United Mine Workers of America, 497 F.2d 459, 466 (C.A. 6, 1974).

[112 MICHAPP 621] Given this policy and the broad definition of a labor dispute, 29 U.S.C.A. Sec. 152(9), we find the section applicable here.

Plaintiffs seek to impose a duty on the International by alleging that the International had knowledge of the "dangerous propensities" of Local 465 members, and actual notice and knowledge of threats of violence made by Local 465 members toward the management of plaintiff's employer. Assuming them to be true, these allegations fall far short of constituting participation in, authorization or ratification of, the assault on plaintiff by the named members of Local 465.

Significantly, plaintiffs did not allege that the International had knowledge that this particular attack would take place, let alone allege that the International knew of the dangerous propensities of, or threats made by, the specific members of Local 465 who perpetrated the assault. While making no reference to section 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, this Court in Bescoe v. Laborers' Union Local No. 334, 98 Mich.App. 389, 411-413, 295 N.W.2d 892 (1980), held that the employer bears the duty of providing a safe workplace, and absent a showing that the union had undertaken the employer's duty, the union could not be held liable for an assault by one of its members, even though it knew of that member's repeated threats of violence.

The duty of the International to prevent violent acts of its members cannot rest on the mere union-member relationship, since a union, its local affiliates, and individual members are distinct entities, and one cannot be held liable for the acts of another. United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 64 S.Ct. 1248, 88 L.Ed. 1542 (1944); Coronado Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of America, 268 U.S. 295, 45 [112 MICHAPP 622] S.Ct. 551, 69 L.Ed. 963 (1925). Plaintiffs did not seek in their complaint to impose liability on the International on a theory of agency, and even where agency is alleged, there must be a showing that the union participated in, authorized or ratified the tortious conduct. Kerry Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of America, 637 F.2d 957 (C.A. 3, 1981);...