Suggs v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: FRANKUM
• Citation: Suggs v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 121 S.E.2d 661, 104 Ga.App. 219 (Ga. App. 1961)
• Decision Date: 18 May 1961
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 38659,38659,2
• Parties: D. W. SUGGS v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN et al

Page 661

121 S.E.2d 661

104 Ga.App. 219

D. W. SUGGS v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN & ENGINEMEN et al.

No. 38659.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

May 18, 1961.

Rehearing Denied July 27, 1961.

Syllabus by the Court

1. It is error to grant a motion for a summary judgment where there are substantial issues of material facts.

2. A motion for a summary judgment must specify the grounds relied upon by movant as a basis for a summary judgment.

D. W. Suggs filed suit against the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, a labor union, (hereinafter referred to as the Brotherhood) and the Central of Georgia Railway Co. The plaintiff's action is one seeking damages resulting from an alleged wrongful dismissal of the plaintiff on July 5, 1955, as an employee of the defendant, Central of Georgia Railway Co., such dismissal being at the request of the defendant Brotherhood (because the plaintiff was delinquent in payment of his dues), under a Union Shop Agreement whereby the railway company contracted to employ only those employees in good standing with the Brotherhood.

The Union Shop Agreement is as follows: 'This agreement made this 20th day of March, 1953, between the Central of Georgia Railway Company and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen shall become effective April 1, 1953, as follows: 1. As a condition of employment all employees covered by the Firemen's Agreement shall, within sixty (60) days after their employment, or within sixty (60) days after the effective date of this agreement, whichever is later, become and remain members in good standing in the Brotherhood during the life of this agreement, except as provided below. 2. Expulsion from the Brotherhood for reasons other than non-payment of periodic dues, initiation fees and assessments (not including fines and penalties) shall not be cause for the termination of services or dismissal of an employee from the service of the Company. The Brotherhood shall not refuse to admit to membership any person who may come within the bargaining unit, except in accordance with its constitutional requirements. No employee refused membership in the Brotherhood shall be dismissed under provisions of this agreement. 3. The requirements of membership in the Brotherhood shall be satisfied by any employee who maintains membership in any one of the other labor organizations national in scope, organized in accordance with the Railway Labor Act, and representing employees in engine, train, yard or hostling service, and admitting to membership employees engaged in any of said services. Nothing in this agreement shall prevent an employee from changing membership in one organization to another of his choice. 4. Employees holding seniority rights in any classes or crafts represented by the Brotherhood shall not be subject to provisions of this agreement as long as they are assigned to official positions with the Company, or when on leave of absence, or on furlough, or injured or sick or in retirement under the provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act; and their seniority shall continue to accumulate during such absence from actual duty, provided that immediately upon return to service or exercising such seniority rights as they man hold, such employees shall comply with the provisions of the preceding paragraphs. 5. No employee will be discharged under provisions of this agreement without the benefit of proper investigation and representation, if he desires and requests same in writing to Division Superintendents. Responsibility for initiating action to enforce provisions of this agreement shall rest with the Brotherhood and be progressed through normal discipline procedure as provided by Article 31 of the Firemen's Agreement. 6. The Brotherhood shall indemnify, defend, and save harmless the Company from any and all claims, demands, liability, losses or damages resulting from the making and/or complying with this agreement. This agreement shall remain in effect subject to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.'

The case was removed to the Federal court, but later remanded to the State court. During the time the case was pending in the Federal court, depositions were taken under the Federal rules. After the case was remanded to the superior court, the parties to this case entered into a stipulation whereby the depositions, taken under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 'may be used in evidence in this matter to the same extent as had said depositions been taken pursuant to proper notice under the 1959 Act of Georgia, Page 425, et seq.' Thereafter, each defendant filed a motion for a summary judgment, and upon a hearing, the trial court sustained each motion. The ruling on each motion is assigned as error by the plaintiff in this appeal.

J. Neely Peacock, Jr., Albany, for plaintiff in error.

Divine & Busbee, George D. Busbee, Albany, Julian C. Sipple, Savannah, for defendant in error.

FRANKUM, Judge.

1. 'The crux of the summary judgment procedure is that if there is no substantial issue as to any material fact, then the court can apply the appropriate legal principles and define the legal rights of the parties without lengthy trials to establish the already undisputed facts.' Caldwell v. Mayor, etc., of Savannah, 101 Ga.App. 683, 684, 115 S.E.2d 403, 404. See also Scales v. Peevy, 103 Ga.App. 42, 118 S.E.2d 193.

Code Ann. § 110-1203, requires the trial court, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, to consider '* * * the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, * * *' in support of the grounds of the motion to ascertain if there is any issue of a material fact. The plaintiff's right to maintain an action arises by the reason of the provisions of the employment contract negotiated between the Brotherhood and the Railway Company. See Hooser v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., D.C., 177 F.Supp. 186. The defendant railway company filed a motion for summary judgment upon the ground that it discharged the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of the Union Shop Agreement. The defendant Brotherhood moved for a summary judgment in its behalf without specifying any ground. Attached to the respective defendants' motions are affidavits of certain Brotherhood officials and Railway Company employees. The depositions of the plaintiff and...