Wachter v. Grogan, 600
| Decision Date | 15 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 32268,No. 600,A,600,32268 |
| Citation | 410 S.W.2d 550 |
| Parties | 65 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2930, 54 Lab.Cas. P 11,559 Anthony J. WACHTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles W. GROGAN, Desmond Lane, Robert Capps, Patrick Neary, Robert Cochran, Edward M. Fisher and August Mehrhoff, as Individuals, as Officers and Membersof Highway & City Freight Drivers, Dockmen & Helpers, Local Unionffiliatedwith the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen& Helpers of America, and as Representatives of a Class Consisting of theEntire Membership of Highway & City Freight Drivers, Dockmen & Helpers LocalUnionffiliatedwith the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen& Helpers of America, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Susman, Willer, Rimmel & Elbert, by Harold I. Elbert, St. Louis, for appellant.
Harry H. Craig and Clyde E. Craig, Wiley, Craig, Armbruster & Wilburn, St. Louis, for respondents.
CLEMENS, Commissioner.
Plaintiff Anthony J. Wachter claimed that the defendant Union had maliciously expelled him. He sued the Union for actual and punitive damages, and the jury gave him a $12,700 verdict. On the Union's after-trial motion for judgment the trial court decided it did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter and entered judgment for the Union. Wachter appeals.
Here, the decisive issue whether Wachter's claim comes within the Labor Management Relations Act--and, hence, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. That issue turns on whether Wachter's claim is based on an 'unfair labor practice' under the Labor Management Relations Act or on an 'internal union matter,' to which the Labor Management Relations Act does not apply. The Union says, in effect: Wachter retorts:
Wachter's suit for wrongful expulsion deals with three earlier quasi-judicial proceedings within the Union framework. First, a labor-management grievance committee upheld Wachter's dismissal from his job at C.E.S. Truck Lines. Second, Wachter filed charges against defendant Charles W. Grogan seeking to oust him from the Union for Grogan's conduct in the grievance committee hearing. The Union exonerated Grogan. Third, Grogan filed charges against Wachter to oust him from the Union for Wachter's conduct in trying to oust Grogan. These charges were sustained and Wachter was ousted. But after two appeals by Wachter, the International Teamsters Union reversed his ouster and reinstated him to membership. Then, Wachter filed this action for damages arising from his wrongful expulsion. We will relate the verdict-consistent evidence on the background, each of the three hearings, and Wachter's damages.
Wachter was a ten-year member of the Union and drove a truck for the C.E.S. Truck Lines all that time. He was active in Union affairs--his fellow workers at C.E.S. elected him shop steward. In a Union election Wachter unsuccessfully supported an opponent of defendant Grogan for the Union's presidency. Soon after, Grogan proposed a change in the Union's bylaws to empower him, rather than employees, to select shop stewards. Wachter successfully opposed this change. After this meeting where Wachter had prevailed over Grogan, Wachter heard Grogan announce that the trouble with letting employees select their own shop stewards is that 'we have nothing but god-damn bums like Tony Wachter who is down at C.E.S. and it would be better to get rid of them kind of people.' The next day Wachter and Grogan talked: Grogan denied making the derogatory statement and both agreed to forget it.
A few months passed and then Wachter got into trouble with his employer. This eventually led to his discharge and the hearing before the labor-management grievance committee. From time to time Wachter's employer had warned him about violating company rules. Finally, Wachter got a warning letter from the C.E.S. president, Amos Govero, accusing Wachter of loading steel on top of a tarpaulin. During the noon hour on the next day Wachter and Govero met at the loading dock. They had an argument. Wachter demanded that Govero withdraw the warning letter, but Govero refused and ordered Wachter back to work; Wachter refused unless his business agent was present, and claimed that he was still on his lunch hour. Govero fired Wachter and sent him a confirming letter that dd not comply with the company-union contract. At Wachter's request, Grogan as Union president protested the discharge and called for a hearing before a labor-management grievance committee to decide the dispute.
The Grievance Committee Hearing. The six-man committee had three representatives of management and three of labor, including defendants Grogan and Lane. After hearing evidence the committee accepted Govero's version of the dispute with Wachter and found that Wachter had wrongfully refused to go back to work. The committee unanimously upheld Wachter's discharge.
Wachter promptly wrote a critical letter to Harold Gibbons, president of the Teamsters Joint Council 13. He complained of the Union's handling of his grievance and told of Grogan's threat 'to get rid of bums like Tony Wachter.' He later sent a copy of the letter to Dave Beck, then president of the International Teamsters Union.
The Wachter v. Grogan Union Hearing. Wachter immediately filed charges against Grogan, urging that he be ousted from the Union. Wachter contended that Grogan had verbally abused him and that because of Grogan's prejudice against Wachter, Grogan had accepted the employer's version of the dispute rather than Wachter's version. These charges were heard and decided by the Union's executive board, a seven-man panel. Five of the panel members are defendants here and were fellow officers of Grogan; two were Union business representatives whom Grogan had appointed.
Wachter presented evidence by Union members about Grogan's statement that the Union would have to get rid of bums like Wachter. Wachter contended that the Union should have called his fellow employees as witnesses at the grievance committee hearing to support his version of the dispute with Govero. At this hearing before the executive board Wachter did call these men--and they supported Wachter's version of the dispute. In response, Grogan presented documents showing that Wachter's discharge was proper. Also, he denied the validity of Wachter's written complaints to Harold Gibbons and Dave Beck.
The Union executive board exonerated Grogan. It did not find that Wachter's charges against Grogan were malicious. Five days later Grogan filed charges against Wachter.
The Grogan v. Wachter Union Hearing. Grogan struck back with charges to oust Wachter from the Union for Wachter's criticism of the Union and for his activities in the Wachter-Grogan ouster proceeding. Except for one substitution, the same seven-man panel of Union officers and business agents that had heard the Wachter-Grogan ouster proceeding now heard Grogan's complaint against Wachter. Grogan introduced the letters on Wachter's discharge by C.E.S., the grievance committee's finding upholding Wachter's discharge, and Wachter's letters to Gibbons and Beck. Grogan testified that Wachter could have got work and that he never came to the Union hiring hall. By testimony and argument Wachter denied Grogan's charges. The executive board found Wachter guilty of all charges and ordered him permanently expelled from the Union. Wachter first appealed to the Teamsters Joint Council 13, which upheld his expulsion, and then to the International Teamsters Union. There, the order of Wachter's expulsion was set aside and, almost three years later, he was reinstated in the Union 'with any and all rights retroactive to the date of his expulsion.'
Wachter stated at the first hearing, before the labor-management grievance committee, that he was being 'kangaroo'd'; however, at both hearings before the executive board Wachter said he was satisfied with the way the hearings were conducted.
At the trial of this case Wachter testified to his damages. During the five-month period between his discharge from C.E.S. and his expulsion from the Union, Wachter got some work. Through what he called 'the grapevine'--other union drivers and dockmen--Wachter got short-term jobs from five other truck lines, earning some $850. After his expulsion from the Union, Wachter did not go to the Union's hiring hall because of a sign there on the window, 'For Members Only of Local 600.' Although some non-Union members did get work through the hiring hall, Union members were sent out first--non-Union members got what was left over, if anything. Union membership is not essential to getting a job as a driver, but most truck terminals are unionized and membership is helpful. Wachter looked for work. He kept making job applications but got only four weeks' work from two truck lines, earning about $270.
Wachter owned a part interest in a tavern with his father-in-law, and during his 34-month expulsion Wachter worked at the tavern. When his Union membership was restored he went back to work as a truck driver. His net loss of earnings during his expulsion was over $6,000. Wachter's wife testified that after his expulsion he tried to get work and that 'he just worried and didn't take no interest in anything.'
Wachter submitted his case to the jury by modifying MAI 23.07. By this, the trial court told the jury to find for Wachter if:
'First: Defendants instigated a proceeding before the Executive Board of Local Union No. 600 of the Teamsters and caused...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Biggs v. Loida
...erred in some respect, without more, is nothing more than an abstract assertion, Lane v. Katt, Mo.App., 421 S.W.2d 544; Wachter v. Grogan, Mo.App., 410 S.W.2d 550; has been repeatedly condemned as insufficient under the rules; McGrail v. Schmitt, Mo., 357 S.W.2d 111; Moll v. Springdale Park......
-
Lane v. Katt
...S.W.2d 92(4). Defendants' next point that the court erred in admitting aerial photographs is an abstract assertion. In Wachter v. Grogan, Mo.App., 410 S.W.2d 550(10), we condemned a point like that because it did not say why the ruling was erroneous. See, also, McGrail v. Schmitt, Mo., 357 ......