State ex rel. Winnefeld v. Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, 33335

• Decision Date: 22 April 1953
• Docket Number: No. 33335,33335
• Citation: 112 N.E.2d 27,159 Ohio St. 225,50 O.O. 263
• Parties: , 50 O.O. 263 . Supreme Court of Ohio
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 225

159 Ohio St. 225

112 N.E.2d 27, 50 O.O. 263

STATE ex rel. WINNEFELD et al. v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUTLER COUNTY et al.

No. 33335.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

April 22, 1953.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Prohibition is a writ to prevent a tribunal from proceeding in a matter in which it seeks to usurp or exercise a jurisdiction with which it has not been invested by law.

2. A writ of prohibition will be awarded only where there is no other adequate remedy, and, where a court has full and complete jurisdiction of the subject matter of an action pending therein, a writ of prohibition will not be awarded to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment.

3. Ordinarily, a court of general jurisdiction is authorized to determine its jurisdiction of the subject matter involved in a pending action, and, where the petition recites facts which are not in issue, jurisdiction is to be determined from such facts, and a relationship of the parties contrary to that expressly pleaded may not be assumed.

This action originated in the Court of Appeals for Butler County.

The relators, Leo C. Winnefeld, Russell P. Sick, Andrew B. Cook, Roy Humphries, Edward Hendrickson and J. G. Wainscott, filed a petition for a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, the respondent Peter P. Boli, judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, and all other judges thereof, from exercising jurisdiction in and requiring the dismissal of an action pending in that court, such cause being numbered 68259 on the docket thereof.

That action is for a declaratory judgment wherein relators Cook and Sick were named individually as defendants and it is sought to have the court determine and declare the rights of the local named and of all employees of the Clearing Machine Corporation, Hamilton Division, under the provisions of a written collective bargaining agreement entered into by and between the company and an independent union of which Cook and Sick were officers.

In the instant case the Court of Appeals issued a temporary writ of prohibition. An answer was filed and the cause was submitted upon motion of the relators for judgment on the pleadings. That court not only ordered all further proceedings in the declaratory judgment action stayed but also ordered that the restraining orders and injunctions granted by the Court of Common Pleas be set aside.

The cause is here upon appeal by the respondents as a matter of right.

Sol Goodman, Cincinnati, for appellants.

Sohngen, Parrish, Beeler & Egbert, Hamilton, for appellees.

MATTHIAS, Judge.

The Court of Appeals determined that the Court of Common Pleas does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter presented by the petition and supplemental petition filed by Local 1190 of the United Automobile Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America seeking a declaratory judgment. The appeal to this court has placed in issue the validity of the action of the Court of Appeals in granting a writ of prohibition staying all proceedings in the declaratory judgment action and directing the Court of Common Pleas to set aside the restraining orders and injunctions therefore granted.

The record in the instant case contains only the pleadings filed in the Court of Appeals. An essential part of such pleadings are copies of the petition and supplemental petition in the declaratory judgment action, on which the orders of the Court of Common Pleas were based. The determination whether the Court of Common Pleas has jurisdiction over the subject matter must be based upon the allegations in the petition and supplemental petition filed in that court.

That petition, omitting formal parts thereof, is as follows:

'Plaintiffs, Albert C. Jacobs, Robert Lentz, Eugene Petry, Thomas M. Smith, William Thomas, and Ralph C. Wiseman, state that they are now, and at all times stated herein, were production and maintenance employees of Clearing Machine Corporation, a corporation believed to be formed under the laws of the state of Illinois, and with its Hamilton Division located and doing business in Hamilton, Butler county, Ohio; that plaintiffs and approximately one hundred and eighty (180) other production and maintenance employees of the said company, were at all times stated herein, members of Hamilton-Thomas Workers Union. Plaintiffs state that on October 3, 1951, they, as members of said union, together with all other members whom they represent as a class, under the name and designation of Clearing Machine Corporation Workers Union, entered into a contract with the Clearing Machine Corporation.

'Plaintiffs state that said contract described the employees as Clearing Machine Corporation Workers Union, but that the business of said union was carried on under the name of Hamilton-Thomas Workers Union. Plaintiffs state that by reason of meetings of said Hamilton-Thomas Workers Union held on April 21, 1952, April 24, 1952, and April 29, 1952, and on May 1, 1952, due notice of said meetings having been given in accordance with the requirements of the constitution and bylaws of said Hamilton-Thomas Workers Union a majority of the members of said union voted to disorganize said union and to affiliate directly with the UAW-CIO. At said meetings, a motion was duly passed that the Hamilton-Thomas Workers Union disorganize and that the said workers, as a class represented by the plaintiffs, affiliate directly with the UAW-CIO, and that all the assets of said Hamilton-Thomas Workers Union, including the contract, checkoff dues, union treasury, and all other assets, be turned over to the members in good standing to be reimbursed a percentage of the money by seniority, and later to be transferred by said members to the union with whom they affiliate, the UAW-CIO.

'Plaintiffs state that pursuant to said action, they together with all the other members, affiliated with the UAW-CIO, the full and complete name thereof being United Automobile, Air-Craft, Agricultural Implement Workers of America, and made application to said union for a charter, which was chartered as Local 1190.

'Plaintiffs state that on May 5, 1952, they requested of Clearing Machine Corporation in writing, to be recognized under the labor agreement of October 3, 1951.

'Plaintiffs state that as a result of an order, and certificate of representative issued by the National Labor Relations Board, on January 29, 1952, the Hamilton-Thomas Workers Union, sometimes referred to as the Hamilton-Thomas Employees Union, and designated in the contract as the Clearing Machine Corporation Workers Union, was duly designated as the bargaining agent for all of the employees employed by the Clearing Machine Corporation in its Hamilton Division. That the plaintiffs, for themselves individually and as a class, now represent all of said employees as a UAW-CIO union, and have made due application for a charter as a local union of the United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO.

'Plaintiffs state that under said contract, it is provided in Section 1--Recognition, as follows:

"The employer recognizes the union as the exclusive representative of all the employees in the bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, provided that any adjustment of any grievances shall not be inconsistent with the terms of this agreement and provided further that a union representative has been given opportunity to be present at such adjustment.'

'It is further provided in paragraph 'C' as follows:

"All present employees and all new employees shall, within 90 days of the date of their employment, become members of the union and, as a condition of employment, remain members of the union in good standing during the term of this agreement.'

'Plaintiffs state that this action is brought upon behalf of these plaintiffs, and upon behalf of all other production and maintenance employees of the Clearing Machine Corporation similarly situated, it being impracticable for them all to be brought before this court as plaintiffs, and that the filing of this action by these plaintiffs for themselves and the other production and maintenance employees so similarly situated will avoid a multiplicity of suits.

'Plaintiffs state that on or about May 21, 1952, the defendant, Russell P. Sick, claiming to act as recording secretary of the disorganized former Hamilton-Thomas Workers Union, served notice on the plaintiffs that their offices were being vacated, that they were being removed from said offices, and that the said offices were being declared vacant. Plaintiffs further state that on June 4, 1952, the defendants Andrew B. Cook and Russell P. Sick with the aid and assistance of the Clearing Machine Corporation, posted notices on the bulletins in the plant of said corporation, naming fifty-six (56) employees in said plant who were former members of the Hamilton-Thomas Workers Union, and are now members of the plaintiff union, that said fifty-six (56) employees were delinquent in payment of dues, and said defendants are threatening to...