Case Title: HANNIFIN v RETAIL CLERKS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1973-05-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12271 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1973 MAYME 0 ' C O N N E L L HANNIF I N , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, RETAIL C L E R K S INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION and VERN RHINEHART, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable John B. McClernan, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Thomas Joyce, Butte, Montana. Benjamin Hilley argued, Great F a l l s , Montana. Patrick Paul, Great F a l l s , Montana. For Respondent: Henningsen and Purcell, Butte, Montana. James Purcell argued, Butte, Montana. Donald C . Robinson argued, Butte, Montana. Filed :MRY 4 \973 Submitted: March 29, 1973 Decided : lJlm 4 ~$EI ... . ' ? . i ,j, j , . . : '.--" ...J) / lp 1 4 , A G - 7 ) * - I f 0,: " ..., . i ' Clerk '2 / M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from a jury verdict rendered i n the d i s t r i c t court of Silver B o w County against defendant R e t a i l Clerks Interna- t i o n a l Association, The action was brought by Mayme ~ ' ~ o n n e l l Hannifin alleging among other things, t h a t the R e t a i l Clerks In- ternational Associati.on had induced R e t a i l Clerks Union Local No, 4 t o breach i t s employment contract with her, Before reaching the major issue we dispose of two preliminary matters. F i r s t i s defendant's (appellant herein) challenge t o t h i s Court's and the d i s t r i c t court's jurisdiction. This challenge i s based on defendant's view t h a t t h i s i s a "labor law1' case and a s such i s governed by federal law. I n a recent decision, Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, 91 S.Ct, 1909, 29 L ed 2d 473, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the preemption by the United States of t h e complete law of labor relations. While t h i s is true, under our view of the f a c t s and law i n t h i s case no labor law issue i s presented which need be resolved by federal labor law. The f a c t s i n Motor Coach Employees show interference with a c o l l e c t i v e bargaining agreement, Nothing even similar i s found i n t h i s case, a s w i l l hereinafter appear, Second i s p l a i n t i f f ' s (respondent herein) motion t o dismiss the appeal. This motion was based on defendant's alleged f a i l u r e t o f i l e the record within the time l i m i t s e t out i n Montana Appellate Rules of C i v i l Procedure, The notice of appeal was f i l e d on December 20, 1971. Shortly t h e r e a f t e r defendant ordered a t r a n s c r i p t of the proceedings from the o f f i c i a l court reporter. When it became apparent t h a t the t r a n s c r i p t would not be ready within the f o r t y days provided i n Rule IO(a), M.R.App.Civ.P,, defendant moved the d i s t r i c t court under Rule l o @ ) f o r a ninety day extension of time f o r the f i l i n g of the record, Either through e r r o r by the defendant o r the d i s t r i c t court, the order granting the motion gave defendant u n t i l April 28, 1972, t o f i l e the record. Under the r u l e an extension should be granted from the date of the f i l i n g of the notice of appeal, In t h i s case the extension should have been granted u n t i l March 19, 1-972. O n April 28, 1972, defendant f i l e d an order with t h i s Court asking f o r a t h i r t y day extension, which was granted. On t h a t same day, unknown t o defendant, the record was f i l e d , It i s on the basis of t h i s l a t e f i l i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f claims the appeal should be dis- missed, It appears from defendant's b r i e f on appeal t h a t t h e d i f f i c u l t y was a lack of communication between counsel f o r defendant and the court reporter, which resulted i n the-delay. Under Rule 10(c), M,R. App,Civ.P., t h i s Court has wide discretion i n permitting the f i l i n g of a record. The pertinent portion of t h a t r u l e reads: "If t h e d i s t r i c t court i s without authority t o grant the r e l i e f sought o r has denied a request therefor, the supreme court may on motion extend the time f o r transmitting the record o r may permit the record t o be trznsmitted and f i l e d a f t e r t h e expiration of the time allowed o r fixed." Montana's r u l e i s i d e n t i c a l t o the federal r u l e and f o r t h a t reason the following federal authority i s persuasive, I n King v. Laborers Internat. U, of No. America, U,L. No. 818, 443 F.2d 273, 276 (6th C i r . 1971), the court held where the record had been f i l e d within the f o r t y days allowed and the appellant's b r i e f had not been timely f i l e d : "The r u l e s c i t e d by Appellee a r e s t a t e d i n per- missive, r a t h e r than mandatory language, W e a r e n o t required t o dismiss every appeal which does not meet each of the time limitations i n the above- s t a t e d rules. t 1 A s s t a t e d heretofore, t h i s Court has discretion i n t h i s type of case, and where, a s here, serious issues a r e presented f o r review we wj.11 not dismiss the appeal. The action was brought originally against the l o c a l union f o r breach of contract. After discovery proceedings, the complajmt was amended t o include the r e t a i l Clerks International Association, al- leging t h a t t h a t Association had unlawfully induced the breach of p l a i n t i f f ' s employment contract, A t the close of p l a i n t i f f ' s case, the Local Union, one of defendants, moved f o r a directed verdict on a l l four counts of the complaint; count one being concerned with whether the contract of employment had been breached, The Local's motion, a s t o count one, was made on the ground the evi- dence did not show t h a t p l a i n t i f f had been discharged, I n response t o the motion, counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f said: "IJith reference t o t h i s , l e t the record show t h a t the P l z i n t i f f w i l l submit, a s t o the Retail Clerks Union Number 4, t h a t they w i l l submit t h e i r motion i s well taken a s t o counts one, two, three and four of the complaint and I would ask on behalf of m y c l i e n t t h a t the compl-aint be dismissed a s t o the Local Union. 11 The complaint w a s disrnj-ssed a s t o the Local Union. P l a i n t i f f , Mayme Hannifin, served a s business agent- secretary-treasurer of Local E b , 4 &cm July 1954 when she was ap- pointed t o f i l l an unexpired term, u n t i l her alleged discharge i n 1969. Her term of o f f i c e would have expired i n December 1970, The incidents leading t o t h e controversy took. place i n September and e a r l y October, 1969. O n September 22, 1969, Vern Rhinehart went t o Butte i n h i s capacity a s a representative of the Inter- national Association. A n executive board meeting was c a l l e d f o r the night of September 22, There i s dispute i n the testimony a s t o whether it w a s a t ~ h i n e h a r t ' s urging t h a t t h i s meeting was called. Present a t the meeting were Bernard McGarry, president of the Local; J e r r y Kal-archik, vice-president; William C. Smyers, recording secretary; Patsy Thomas, o f f i c e secretary and c l e r k f o r the Local; and Mr-Rhinehart. Mrs. Hannifin did not attend the meeting and there i s controversy i n the testimony a s t o whether she was notified of t h e meeting. Mr. Smyers, t e s t i f y i n g as an adverse witness f o r p l a i n t i f f , stated: If* Jc * t h a t the reason the meeting was called was t h a t Vern m n e h a r t j was i n town t o find out i f he could straighten out the contract t h a t was due i n Dillon Jc * *." The discussion then turned t o the d i f f i c u l t i e s t h e Local was having with M r s . Hannifin. Again M r . Smyers t e s t i f i e d : "9: * * and also he mentioned about Mayme missing the meeting i n Great Falls and then we started discussing her frequent absences from work. '" This discussion apparently resulted i n the officers asking for M r . ~ h i n e h a r t ' s advice, H e gave the Local three alternatives: (1) they could ask the Internation t o put the Local under a trustee- ship, (2) charges could be brought against Mrs, Hannifin and a f t e r t r i a l she could be remaved from office, or ( 3 ) the Local could do nothing. The board members then asked M r . Rhinehart t o leave the meeting so they could discuss the matter, The board, with the exception of McGarry, voted t o ask the International for a trusteeship. This would have meant, i f approved by International, a l l the officers of the Local would have been removed and someone appointed by International would take charge of the management of the Local. The trusteeship was not approved by International. A l l members of the board voted for the trusteeship, except M r , McGarry, and they signed a l e t t e r t o that effect addressed t o lnternati.onalts president. On the following day another member of the board, not present that night, signed the l e t t e r and it was mailed, On September 24, Mrs, ~ a n n i f i n ' s sister, M r s , Jewel1 McLeod, took some dues s l i p s t o the union office for Mrs. Hannifin. Mrs. ~ c ~ e a d ' s testimony was that Patsy Thomas told her a t that time that v i s i t Mrs. Hannifin's job 'bas gone". During t h i s /patsy Thomas gave M r s . McLeod the union check book so that her s i s t e r could sign some checks. had Mrs. Hannif i n t e s t i f i e d that she /this telephone conversation with Patsy Thomas that same day: "I called Patsy on the morning; the morning of the 24th and I said, 'patsy are you mad a t me? , She said, no, but I believe everybody else i s , I said, 'I w i l l I be up i n a l i t t l e while. She said, 'you don't have t o come up. Your job i s a l l through, Vem Rhinehart was here Monday night and we had a meeting of the exeeu- tive board and you a r e a l l finished. I pleaded with them and everythi.ng. H e said there was nothing you could do, H e was turning the Union into a trusteeship. There was nothing that could be done about i t a t a l l , "' After t h i s conversation Mrs. Hannifin made no attempt t o contact any of the officers of the Local t o either substantiate o r confirm what she had been told by Patsy Thomas. A s a matter of f a c t , M r s . Hannifin f i l e d f o r unemployment insurance benefits on September 29, the same day she v i s i t e d the union o f f i c e t o request her l a s t week's paycheck and vacation pay due her. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t Mr. Thomas Evankovich was present i n the o f f i c e t h a t morning and she thought he had been sent i n by International t o run the Loca 1. The t r i a l centered around t h e issue of whether, by the actions of Rhinehart, the Local was induced t o breach i t s contract with Mrs. Hannifin, P l a i n t i f f ' s theory was t h a t by the action of Rhine- h a r t the Local requested the trusteeship and Mrs, Hannifin was rem~ved from office. The controlling issue i s whether t h e d i s t r i c t court erred i n denying defendant's motion f o r a directed verdict a t the end of p l a i n t i f f ' s case i n c h i e f , Motions f o r directed verdicts a r e provided f o r by Rule 50, M.R,Civ.P. I n Mueller v. Svejkovsky, 153 Mont, 416, 420, 458 P.2d 265, t h i s Court established three r u l e s which apply on an appeal from a motion denying a directed verdict: "On an appeal from a motion denying a directed verdict there a r e three r u l e s which apply. (1) The evidence introduced by the p l a f n t i f f w i l l be considered i n the l i g h t most favorable t o him, (2) The conclusion sought t o be drawn from the f a c t s must follow a s a matter of law, (3) Only the evidence of t h e p l a i n t i f f w i l l be considered, Pickett v, Kyger, 151 Mont, 87, 439 P,2d 57," In l i g h t of these r u l e s , t h i s Court cannot reach the conclu- sion the evidence produced would permit a jury t o find t h a t Inter- national had induced the Local t o discharge Mrs, Hannifin. It i s impossible t o find anything i n the record which would lead t o the conclusion M r s . Hannifin was discharged a t a l l . A s has been previously s t a t e d , the request f o r trusteeship was denied by I n t e r - national. The only testimony concerning Mrs. Hannifin's discharge came from p l a i n t i f f h e r s e l f , By her o m testimony she indicates her "belief" t h a t the alleged discharge occurred a t the executive board meeting on September 22. Her testimony was: "Q. Ffia f i r e d you, Mayme? A, Well, I would say t h a t Vern Rhinehart through the executive board, "Q. Well, why do you say t h a t ? A. Because when I talked t o Patsy t h a t morning she t o l d m e Vern Rhinehart had advised the executive board t h a t they were going i n t o a trusteeship and I was a l l through, There was absolutely nothing I could do about it. "Q, Did Rhinehart himself t e l l you you were f i r e d ? A. No. "Q. Did any member of the executive board t e l l you you were f i r e d ? A. No, hut Patsy Thomas did. "Q. I s she on the executive board? A, No, she i s not. "Q. What i s her s t a t u s with the Union? A. 1 ' d say she i s a c l e r k of t h e Union. "Q, Did you h i r e her o r did they--A. I hired her, "Q. Did she hold o f f i c e a t your pleasure while you were there. A. Yes, she did, "Q, You could have f i r e d her i f you didn ' t think. she was doing a good job, r i g h t ? A. Yes, "Q. She had no authority t o f i r e you? A. No, she d i d n ' t , but the executive board a s such could have, "Qq, H o w i s t h a t ? H o w could the executive board f i r e you? A. Because she t o l d m e they had taken a procedure, they had gone i n t o a trusteeship so i f you go i n t o a trustee- ship you a r e f i r e d , "Q. Did she a c t u a l l y go i n on---A. I d i d n ' t know t h i s . Q . Did you inquire? A, No, I d i d n ' t because she said i t s j u s t a l l sealed, signed and delivered. She said you a r e f i r e d t h a t ' s it. There i s j u s t nothing t h a t can be done, "Q, What authority did she have to---A. As a friend of mine I think she told m e that. "Q, So you r e a l l y don't know whether it did go i n t o a trusteeship o r not? A. No, I didn't know, 11 Q. W h o i s the chief executive o f f i c e r of the Local Union? A, I was the chief executive o f f i c e r of the Local Union. "Q. You were the boss? A. And I was the boss, "Q. And you were familiar with constitution generally I suppose? A, Yes, I was, I I The Colorado Court of Appeals i n Colorado C i v i l Rights Com'n v, S t a t e School D i s t , No, 1, (Col,kpp.l971), 488 P.2d 83, 8 6 , es- tablished a t e s t t o determine whether a person has been discharged: he f a c t of discharge does not depend upon the use of formal words of f i r i n g . The t e s t i s whether s u f f i c i e n t words o r actions by the employer 'would logically lead a prudent person t o believe h i s tenure had been terminated, I' W e believe t h i s t o be a proper t e s t and we adopt i t f o r use i n t h i s case, It must be painted out t h a t Mrs.Hannifin was not an employee who could be discharged a t the w i l l of her employer. She was an elected o f f i c i a l of the union, chosen f o r her position by the e n t i r e membership of t h e Local, The Local had established procedures f o r the removal of j.ts e l e c t i v e o f f i c e r s . A r t i c l e V, Section 11, of i t s constitution reads: " A l l the o f f i c e r s s h a l l serve f o r the period of their election unless removed f o r incompetency, neglect of duty, o r dishonesty, i n accordance with the Constitution of the International Asso- ciation. I I The International constitution provides procedure f o r t h e removal of local union o f f i c e r s , The evidence presented by plain- t i f f can b e s t be summed up i n the statement made by Mrs, Hannifin on cross-examination. She responded t o the question: I I J u s t what information do you have t h a t the Znter- national f i r e d you?" with "Just what Patsy gave m e and what I heard around t o m and a l l kinds of things t h a t were said." This i s hardly the type of information which would lead a prudent person t o believe t h a t she had been discharged. There is nothing i n the record t o show t h a t Mrs. Hannifin ever talked t o anybody i n authority i n the Local t o confirm her discharge, Her only source of information was the o f f i c e secretary, It has long been held t h a t an agent of an employer cannot discharge another employee, unless he has the authority t o da so. Amann v, Pantages, 90 Wash, 271, 155 P. 1070, N o testimony was presented which would indicate Patsy Thomas was empowered t o speak f o r the Local. To the contrary, M r s . Hannifin was h e r supervisor, E a r l i e r i n t h i s opinion we painted out t h a t the complaint was dismissed a s t o the Local Union on the specific count t h a t referred t o the alleged discharge o r breach of contract; and t h a t counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f agreed the motion f o r directed verdict was w e l l taken. Clearly t h a t was correct; and, j u s t a s c l e a r l y , i f there was no breach of contract by t h e Local Union, the Interna- t i o n a l Union could not have induced a breach t h a t did not occur. Therefore, we hold a s a matter of law t h a t there was no f a c t u a l dispute over which reasonable men could dispute and the d i s t r i c t court erred i n denying defendant's motion f o r a directed verdict. Other issues r a i s e d on t h i s appeal need not be discussed i n view of the r e s u l t reached, The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s reversed and the action dismissed. W e Concur: A n . Jack Shanstrorn, D i s t r i c t ' Judge, s i t t i n g for M K ~ Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison. M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly dissenting: I respectfully dissent t o the view of the majority. The majority opinion contradicts one of our longest standing and most frequently repeated principles of appellate jurispru- dence, In the recent case of Resner v. Northern Pacific Railway, Mont . 505 P.2d 86, 89, 30 %.Rep. 55,60, t h i s Court quoted from Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645, 66 S.Ct. 740, 90 L Ed 1 1 1 Whenever f a c t s a r e i n dispute o r the evidence i s such t h a t fair-minded men may draw d i f f e r e n t infer- ences, a measure of speculation o r conjecture i s required on the p a r t of those whose duty i t i s t o s e t t l e the dispute by choosing what seems t o them t o be the most reasonable inference. Only when there i s a complete absence of probative f a c t s t o support the conclusion reached does a reversible e r r o r appear, But where * f: * there i s an evi- dentiary basis f o r the jury's v e r d i c t , the jury i s f r e e t o discard o r disbelieve whatever f a c t s a r e inconsistent with i t s conclusion, And the appellate c o u r t ' s function i s exhausted when t h a t evidentiary basis becomes apparent, it being immaterial t h a t the court might draw a contrary inference o r f e e l t h a t another conclusion i s more reasonable. ' " See also: Kirby v. Kelly, M o n t . 504 P. 2d 683, 29 St.Rep. 1090; Davis v. Davis, 159 Mont. 355, 497 P.2d 315, 29 St,Rep, 65; Wallace v. Wallace, 85 Mont. 492, 279 P. 374; 66 This principle of law circumscribing our r i g h t t o review the evidence i s based on the sound premise t h a t the t r i a l court and jury have an obvious advantage over the appellate court i n making determinations of f a c t . They hear and observe the a t t i t u d e and demeanor of t h e witnesses firsthand, whereas t h i s Court has only th.e written record, A n exami.nation of t h a t written record reveals defendant has r e l i e d exclusively on the f a c t s (1) t h e person informing Mrs. Hannifin t h a t her job was l o s t was subordinate t o her i n rank, and (2) M r s . Hannifin chose t o pursue her remedy i n the d i s t r i c t court r a t h e r than through i n t e r n a l union v e r i f i c a t i o n and appeal channels. Defendant made l i t t l e o r no attempt t o e s t a b l i s h several other aspects of i t s case a s f a c t , including (1) t h a t Patsy Thomas had spoken mistakenly, imdependently o r i n excess of her conferred authority, (2) t h a t M r s . Hannifin had o r should have had reason t o disbelieve o r doubt the word of Patsy Thomas, (3) t h a t M r s . Hannifin did not, i n f a c t , believe t h a t Patsy Thomas was relaying t r u e information from those i n authority t o e f f e c t her dismj-ssal, (4) t h a t Mrs, Hannifin did voluntarily and with f u l l knowledge of her actions, resign her employment, (5) t h a t Mrs. Hannifin expressly o r impliedly waived the pro- tections she was accorded under her employment contract and the constitutions of Butte Local No. 4 and t h e Retail Clerks International Association, o r (6) t h a t defendant o r anyone connected with it, made any attempt t o correct the claimed they misapprehension 1- ~ e a t e d - i n the mind of Mrs. Hannifin t h a t her job had been terminated. The jury supplied the answers t o these questions of f a c t based on the evidence presented a t t r i a l , It i s not the prerogative of t h i s Court t o supply i t s own answers. There was some testimony indicating t h a t Mrs. ~ a n n i f i n ' s job performance was poor and created adequate grounds f o r dismissal. Perhaps then, it could be rationalized t h a t i n t h i s case the end r e s u l t w a s j u s t and equitable, Even i f t h i s were t r u e , I do not believe the end j u s t i f i e s the means. And indeed, the means employed t o circumvent Mrs. ~ a n n i f i n ' s r i g h t s under h e r employment contract and the union constitutions a r e within the purview of constructive fraud, i f intentional, o r actionable negligence, i f inadvertent, The finding of f a c t , a s made by the jury, was based on sub- s t a n t i a l , credible and i n some aspects uncontradicted evidence. There appears no indication of passion o r prejudice on the p a r t of the t r i a l court o r jury, The verdict and judgment did no mare than compensate Mrs. Hannifin f o r the wages the Local Union was contractually obligated t o pay her over the remainder of her elected term of employment. I would affirm the judgment