Swope v. Emerson Elec. Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 May 1957
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 45388,45388,2
• Citation: 303 S.W.2d 35
• Parties: Edward SWOPE et al., Appellants, v. The EMERSON ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al., Respondents
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 35

303 S.W.2d 35

Edward SWOPE et al., Appellants, v. The EMERSON ELECTRIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al., Respondents.

No. 45388.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 13, 1957.

Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer to Court en Banc Denied

June 10, 1957.

William P. Byrne, St. Louis, for appellants.

R. H. McRoberts, R. H. McRoberts, Jr., St. Louis, for defendants-respondents, Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts, St. Louis, of counsel.

EAGER, Presiding Judge.

In this suit fifteen former maintenance employees of Emerson Electric Manufacturing Company sought the recovery of three hundred thousand dollars as damages upon the theory that the employer and the individual defendants conspired to discharge plaintiffs because of union activities, and in breach of their employment contract. During their employment plaintiffs were all members of Local 1102, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, C. I. O. The suit was instituted on February 3, 1954; the union is not a party to this suit. Ten of the officers and supervisory personnel of the corporation were joined as defendants, descending in grade from the President to the General Foreman of the Maintenance Department. We note at this point the following allegations of plaintiffs' petition, as amended: '* * * that said defendants conspired and plotted to discharge these plaintiffs for the reason that these plaintiffs were the most active in union affairs and had been threatened with dismissal on numerous occasions by said defendants. * * * That said discharge was not a true discharge but rather was a subterfuge on the part of said defendants to discharge plaintiffs for their union activities.' The details of the discharge will be developed more fully in our statement of the facts. The damages sought were for loss of wages, past and future, and for loss of seniority rights 'and other privileges.'

Defendants, by motion to dismiss and by answer, asserted that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit because the National Labor Relations Board had exclusive jurisdiction thereof as an unfair labor practice; they also alleged that plaintiffs had, on or about September 8, 1953, filed with the Regional Director of the Labor Board their claims for reinstatement, that the Board found no evidence of unfair labor practices, and that it declined to issue a complaint. The answer further alleged the conclusive effect of an arbitration held under the collective bargaining agreement existing between the employer and the union. In their reply, plaintiffs alleged that the arbitration award was void for various reasons (some of which we need not mention), including the assertion that the union and the employer used the arbitration as a 'sham and artifice' to remove them from employment because they had been critical of 'union policy'; and they further alleged 'that the action of the regional director, Fourteenth region, National Labor Relations Board, was the result of bias and prejudice against these plaintiffs,' in that he failed and refused to hear evidence from them in support of their charges and only took the statement of one of them, (reciting certain facts which were supposedly thus ignored), and that plaintiffs were thereby deprived of valuable property rights, 'without due process'; they denied that the 'findings of the regional director are conclusive.'

At the trial, which began on October 24, 1955, the court directed a verdict in favor of all the individual defendants, and also directed a verdict for all defendants against the plaintiff Branson, since he had failed to appear. The jury found and returned separate verdicts (as to each plaintiff) in favor of the remaining defendant, Emerson Electric Mfg. Company. Motion for new trial was duly filed and overruled. Since this appeal was taken, the plaintiff Willie Swope has voluntarily dismissed his appeal.

We shall state here certain of the facts, as briefly as possible. In so far as the issues were submitted to the jury we may consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict below. Wright v. Osborn, 356 Mo. 382, 201 S.W.2d 935. This, however, will not be determinative of the case, in view of the basis of our decision. A collective bargaining agreement was in force between Emerson Electric Mfg. Company (hereinafter called 'the Company') and Local 1102 of the union. That agreement expressly provided that: '* * * there shall be no strikes, slowups, sit-downs, sympathy strikes, stoppage of work or any other form of interference with production or other operation. Any individual or group violating the above may be discharged.' The maintenance force of the company consisted of approximately 125 men, including millwrights, carpenters, pipefitters, and members of other crafts. For several years there had been recurrent discussions between the company and representatives of the maintenance crew about bringing in outside labor to erect new furnaces; letters had passed on the subject, but neither the existing agreement nor the past procedure is entirely clear from the record. It is indicated in the letters that the company had reserved the right to bring in such labor when deemed necessary or expedient, but that the union would be notified in advance. During the spring of 1953 the company had contracted for the erection of a new annealing furnace by the Surface Combustion Company; apparently that work was to begin on Friday, August 21, 1953. Very shortly before that date the union was notified, and much dissatisfaction ensued. On Friday the maintenance force stopped work and gathered in the department; the general foreman told them to go to the cafeteria, and there considerable discussion took place. Much stress is laid by plaintiffs on their claim that Mr. Hughes, Assistant Works Manager, there and then told the men that if they would all go back to work he (or other officials) would meet with them the first thing Monday and thresh the matter out. There are several different versions of the statement, but these differences are immaterial in the view we now take. The various shifts did work on Friday night, Saturday, and Sunday and for an hour on Monday morning. The day shift then quit work and assembled again, en masse, in the cafeteria; after an hour or so they were specifically told to go back to work, that there had been a 'misunderstanding' about the meeting, and that they would be paid for the time then lost. Nevertheless, the group, generally, 'sat out' the day Monday and substantially all of Tuesday morning, remaining in the caffeteria. It is significant here to note that during this time and previously the officials of the union were holding frequent talks with the company concerning the supposed grievance, that they made efforts to get the men back to work, and that it was not 'normal procedure' for the employer to meet with the individual men on grievances. It is not denied that the local and its officers had general authority to represent the men in such negotiations. The gist of the situation is that there was a 'wildcat' stoppage of work, not authorized by the local or its officers, and continuing against the will of the latter, except in so far as these plaintiffs claim that the stoppage was justified by the breach of the company's agreement to meet with them on Monday morning. In the view we take of the case, we need not decide the possible effect of any such agreement. Shortly after 11:00 A.M. on Tuesday, August 25, 1953, suspension notices (which, under the contract, were preliminary to a discharge) were passed out to all the men present in the cafeteria, and similar notices were given later to those maintenance employees who were not then present. At that time the group had given no notice of any intent to return to work. Within the next few days approximately 110 of the men were re-employed, apparently as new employees. The plaintiffs were not re-employed. One testified that he was told: 'We don't have a job for you. I believe you were the instigator of trying to get the AFL Union in here * * *.' The discharges were expressly stated to be based upon 'an unauthorized work stoppage and an illegal sit-down strike.'

The contract provided for hearings following discharge, if requested. Such hearings were begun, but after a few men were interviewed the union officials present decided to short-cut the procedure and proceed to an immediate arbitration. Plaintiffs say that this was done because the hearings proved to be a mere 'kangaroo' proceeding, or sham; be that as it may, the grievance procedure was expedited and an arbitrator agreed upon. The arbitration was held on September 10, 1953, and the arbitrator found that the discharges were for proper cause; he denied the grievance. Plaintiffs attack the arbitration award vehemently, because the arbitrator was not sworn, because he did not hear sworn testimony, because the union failed to represent them properly, and for other reasons. This also has become immaterial in the view we take of the case, as have also certain other allegations of error in counsel's brief.

We have decided that the trial court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action. The allegations and admissions in the pleadings raise a necessary inference that the employment of plaintiffs was one within the scope of the Labor Management Relations Act, Title 29 U.S.C.A. Sec. 151 et seq.; in other words, plaintiffs and the employer were engaged in interstate commerce and thus subject to the act. It is conceded in the reply that plaintiffs sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labor Board by filing with the Regional Director a petition seeking reinstatement. As a part of plaintiffs' case it was shown that the company had plants in both Missouri and Illinois. The evidence of defendants specifically shows substantial interstate commerce, and, since this only goes to a matter of law (i. e., jurisdiction), we could...