Textile Workers Union of America v. Paris Fabric Mills

• Decision Date: 30 October 1952
• Docket Number: No. A--463,A--463
• Citation: 22 N.J.Super. 381,92 A.2d 40
• Parties: TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA et al. v. PARIS FABRIC MILLS, Inc.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 381

22 N.J.Super. 381

92 A.2d 40

TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA et al. v. PARIS FABRIC MILLS, Inc.

No. A--463.

Superior Court of New Jersey

Appellate Division.

Argued Sept. 22, 1952.

Decided Oct. 30, 1952.

Paul Rittenberg, Paterson, for appellant (Shavick, Rittenberg & Shavick, Paterson, attorneys).

Sol D. Kapelsohn, Newark, for respondents (Kapelsohn, Lerner, Leuchter & Reitman, Newark, attorneys).

Before Judges McGEEHAN, BIGELOW and SMALLEY.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

McGEEHAN, S.J.A.D.

The defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff George Eardley, entered in the Passaic County Court in Eardley's action, as assignee, to recover for employees' vacation pay claimed to be due under a labor contract. Pertinent provisions of the labor contract and the factual background, which are set forth in the reported opinion of the trial judge (Textile, etc., America v Paris Fabric Mills, Inc., 18 N.J.Super. 421, 87 A.2d 458 (Cty.Ct.1952)), need not be repeated here.

The labor contract provided that if an employee quit before June 1, he should receive no vacation pay. The defendant contends that the employees here involved did quit before June 1, because they went on strike against the defendant on April 30, 1951, and continued on strike until after June 1, 1951. The trial judge held that no quitting or abandoning of the employment occurred merely because the employees went on strike against the employer, and that the relation of employer and employee existed on June 1, 1951; and we agree. Jeffery-DeWitt Insulator Co. v. N.L.R.B., 91 F.2d 134, 112 A.L.R. 948 (4 Cir., 1937).

The defendant also argues that no vacation benefits are payable, because the contract under which such benefits are claimed was terminated by the Union as of April 30, 1951, more than one month before the date fixed in the contract as the date upon which the employees' eligibility for vacation benefits were to be determined, namely, June 1. The trial court held that '* * * when the services are rendered, the right to secure the promised compensation is vested as much as the right to receive wages or other form of compensation. In re Wil-Low Cafeterias, Inc., 111 F.2d 429 (2 Cir., 1940); Division of Labor Law Enforcement v. Ryan Aeronautical Co., 106 Cal.App.2d Supp. 833, 236 P.2d 236 (Cal.Super.Ct., App.Dept.1951); Hercules Powder Co. v. Brookfield, 189 Va. 531, 53 S.E.2d 804 (Va.Sup.Ct.App.1949).' In the three cases cited by the trial court, it was held that the employee became entitled under the terms of the contract to the particular benefit while the contract was still in effect. Here by action of the union, the contract itself was terminated more than one month before June 1, the day as of which eligibility of the employee was to be determined by the contract provisions. The question presented, then is whether the parties to the labor contract intended that vacation pay earned while the contract was in effect, namely, up to April 30, 1951, would be payable if the relation of employer and employee still existed on June 1, and on that date the other obligations of the contract necessary to entitle the employee to the benefits were met, even though the...