Williams v. Kansas City Public Service Co.

• Decision Date: 10 September 1956
• Docket Number: No. 44974,No. 2,44974,2
• Citation: 294 S.W.2d 36
• Parties: 38 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2641, 31 Lab.Cas. P 70,215 Richard E. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. KANSAS CITY PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, a corporation, Respondent
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 36

294 S.W.2d 36

38 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2641, 31 Lab.Cas. P 70,215

Richard E. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. KANSAS CITY PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, a corporation, Respondent.

No. 44974.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

Sept. 10, 1956.

Motions to Modify and for Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1956.

Robert J. Taylor, William E. Tipton, Tipton, Birmingham, Taylor & Furry, Kansas City, for appellant.

Charles L. Carr, Hogsett, Houts & James, Kansas City, for respondent.

STOCKARD, Commissioner.

Plaintiff has appealed from an adverse judgment, the effect of which was to sustain a motion to dismiss his petition for failure to state a claim upon which reliet can be granted. Jurisdiction is in this court because the amount of damages sought is $19,000.

Plaintiff's petition, other than caption and signatures, is as follows:

'Comes now the plaintiff and with leave of Court amends his petition herein and states:

'Count I.

'1. That the defendant, Kansas City Public Service Company is a Corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Missouri and engaged in operating a public transportation system in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri.

'2. Plaintiff further states that he was employed by said defendant from December 15, 1942, until on or about August 3, 1951, as a streetcar and bus operator at the defendant's 9th and Brighton Division; that while plaintiff was so employed, he was subject to an agreement or contract between Division No. 1287, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America and the defendant Kansas City Public Service Company, dated as of January 1, 1950, which at all times mentioned herein was in full force and effect.

'3. Plaintiff further states that on or about August 3, 1951 he was discharged for allegedly misappropriating company funds and in accordance with the agreement or contract aforementioned, the plaintiff's grievance was submitted to a purported arbitration and a hearing was held to determine plaintiff's rights; and that plaintiff has fully complied with the terms of said agreement and exhausted his grievance remedies thereunder.

'4. Plaintiff further states that said hearing and the resulting award were unfair, unjust, improper and not impartial and that plaintiff's rights were prejudiced in that only one of the three arbitrators was permitted to view the conduct and demeanor of the only witnesses upon whose testimony the award was based; that there was no competent evidence to support the charge or on which to base an award; that the evidence was contradictory and insufficient; that since the charge was criminal in nature, the plaintiff was entitled to the basic constitutional right of confrontation of his accusers but that plaintiff was deprived of this right and the testimony on which the purported award was based was given by unknown and unseen parties sitting behind a screen, over the objection of plaintiff and his representative; that the evidence submitted in no way proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt; and that therefore plaintiff was wrongfully and unlawfully dismissed and discharged by the defendant.

'5. Plaintiff further states that as a result of the aforementioned award and wrongful dismissal his reputation and character have been irreparably damaged; that he has been deprived of working at his usual occupation or any employment commensurate with his experience and ability; that he has suffered loss of seniority rights and other fringe benefits; that he has been caused to accept employment of a kind and nature that the compensation is much less than that previously earned; and that he has suffered undue hardship, humiliation and loss of income.

'6. Plaintiff further states that because of said wrongful and unlawful discharge he has suffered actual damages in the amount of Nine Thousand ($9,000.00) Dollars loss of wages to date.

'Count II.

'1. For Count II herein, plaintiff adopts and makes a part hereof as though fully copied herein all the allegations and averments set forth in Count I and states that the said agreement or contract aforementioned, according to its terms, created a duty on the part of the defendant to provide the plaintiff with a fair, just and impartial hearing and investigation; and that defendant's failure to so provide was malicious and capricious and constituted a breach of said duty and that by reason of such facts plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in the sum of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars.

'Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment against the defendant in the total sum of Nineteen Thousand ($19,000.00) Dollars, together with his costs herein incurred and expended.'

The defendant filed an answer in which it incorporated a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and in which it also alleged an affirmative defense to the effect that the contract between the defendant and the labor union mentioned in the petition provided for a grievance procedure the result of which was to be final and binding on the parties; that plaintiff submitted his grievance resulting from his discharge to arbitration according to the terms of the said contract; and that the award of the arbitration board was that the discharge of plaintiff was authorized by the contract. No evidence was taken and the record does not disclose any motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court entered judgment that 'both defenses are well founded' and that 'plaintiff take nothing by his suit.' We shall consider first the correctness of the judgment that the petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and in doing so shall consider only those allegations contained in the petition and disregard those in the answer.

This is not a suit to have the arbitration hearing and award set aside as was the case in Continental Bank Supply Co. v. International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, Local No. 243, Mexico, Mo., 239 Mo.App. 1247, 201 S.W.2d 531. Neither is it a suit to obtain a judicial review of the correctness of the arbitration award. Plaintiff bases his claim in count I of the petition for damages resulting from a wrongful discharge from employment. Unless there is a contract pertaining to the duration of the employment or limiting the reasons for which the employee may be discharged the employment is at the will of either party, and the employer may terminate the relationship at any time. Culver v. Kurn, 354 Mo. 1158, 193 S.W.2d 602, 166 A.L.R. 644; Douglas v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Mo.App., 297 S.W. 87; Bell v. Faulkner, Mo.App., 75 S.W.2d 612; 56 C.J.S., Master and Servant, Sec. 48; 35 Am.Jur., Master and Servant Sec. 19; Annotations: 11 A.L.R. 470; 100 A.L.R. 835. Therefore a contract of employment and a breach thereof is a prerequisite to a cause of action for wrongful discharge. Jenkins v. Thompson, Mo.Sup., 251 S.W.2d 325; Craig v. Thompson, Mo.Sup., 244 S.W.2d 37. A petition for wrongful discharge from employment in breach of contract must set forth the essential elements of a valid contract, and a discharge in violation thereof. Mullin v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., Mo.App., 254 S.W.2d 438.

Plaintiff has alleged the existence of a contract between the defendant and a labor union to which it is generally stated plaintiff's employment was subject, but he does not allege the terms thereof pertaining to his employment or the circumstances under which his relationship to defendant as employee may or may not be terminated, and he does not allege facts from which it can be reasonably inferred that the discharge of plai...