Wheeler v. P. Sorensen Mfg. Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 May 1967
• Citation: 415 S.W.2d 582
• Parties: Bertha WHEELER, Appellant, v. P. SORENSEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Inc., et al., Appellees.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Page 582

415 S.W.2d 582

Bertha WHEELER, Appellant, v. P. SORENSEN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Inc., et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 26, 1967.

Robert T. Schneider, Horse Cave, for appellant.

Louis B. Nunn, Joe L. Travis, Nunn & Travis, Glasgow, for appellees.

J. L. HAYS, Special Commissioner.

Appellant filed a complaint which, in essence, alleged that on or about December 11, 1963, agents, employees, or servants of appellees, and in particular, one Harold Matthews, while acting within the course and scope of their employment and under the direction and supervision of appellees, distributed and handed out to all or a great majority of the other employees a large, printed sheet. It was a photograph of a part of her pay check for two different weeks, and disclosed the number of hours she worked, her gross wages, the deductions and her 'take home' pay. This printed sheet also contained the following:

'In 1 year, 4 months and 1 week this employee received an increase of 20cents per hour or $8.00 per week.

IS THIS SO BAD?

Would you get this amount of increase in this short period of time with a union?

ASK FRANK CRAIN!

E Town Time Corp. signed a 3 year contract with the I.U.E. in March 1963 for 5cents per hour each year. Minus $4.00 per month for union dues.

THESE ARE TRUE FACTS'

Also pointed on it were the words: 'NO DUES NO STRIKES NO VIOLENCE NO LOSS OF WAGES NO PICKET LINES NO UNION'.

At that time appellant was an employee of appellee and in the weeks prior thereto a union, namely, IUE-Sorensen Organizing Committee, had been attempting to organize the employees. During the period of time the appellees and union waged a campaign to solicit the vote of the employees and to show the advantages and disadvantages pro and con on the subject.

Appellant further alleged that she held a reasonably good job and was able to transact her business affairs and live her life without undue molestation or interference, and then the sheet referred to was passed out to other employees and it fell into the hands of members of the general public as well.

She claimed that the published sheet which disclosed the amount of her wages, and which, in instances, were more than other employees of the appellees caused many employees to act adversely toward her; and publication and distribution of the paper, as an advertisement for the appellees in the campaign, inclined many of her fellow employees to believe she was actively working upon behalf of appellees in the campaign, when, in fact, she was trying not to become embroiled in the controversy and to merely work and earn a living. She said that the action of the appellees made her work uncomfortable and unpleasant and she was made an object of controversy in the dispute.

She contended that soon afterwards she was summarily dismissed as an employee, and as a result of the sheets having fallen into the hands of the general public she was blacklisted with other employers having like or similar positions of employment, that she has been unable to obtain such employment in the general area of her residence, Glasgow, Kentucky.

Appellant further alleged that the use of her name and wage statement, coupled with the advertisement, was unlawful and entirely without her knowledge or consent, and its unwarranted and authorized use by appellees violated her right to privacy, and seriously jeopardized her ability to work and earn money; and her right to live peaceably and quietly has been violated and by reason of such use she has sustained and will continue to sustain intense mental suffering and distress to her damage in the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars.

Appellees then moved the court to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to entertain an action based on the foregoing allegations and that it failed to state a cause of action or sufficient grounds upon which relief could be granted.

Subsequently, the court entered an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that the National Labor Relations Board has preempted the jurisdiction of the court to entertain an action to recover damages for invasion of right of privacy arising out of tactics employed in an union organization campaign as alleged in the complaint, and on the further ground that the complaint did not state facts upon which relief could be granted.

Two questions are presented for determination on this appeal: First, is there a violation of an employee's right of privacy for an employer, without permission, to publish and distribute to its employees a printed sheet showing the wages and deductions of an employee as an election tactic during an organizational campaign by a labor union? Second, has the National Labor Relations Act preempted the jurisdiction of the state courts to entertain an...