Case Name: Baeten, Respondent, vs. Kaukauna Dairy Company, Appellant, and 20 other cases
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1957-06-26
Citations: 1 Wis. 2d 319
Docket Number: 
Parties: Baeten, Respondent, vs. Kaukauna Dairy Company, Appellant, and 20 other cases.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports Second
Volume: 1
Pages: 319–327

Head Matter:
Baeten, Respondent, vs. Kaukauna Dairy Company, Appellant, and 20 other cases.
June 3
June 26, 1957.
For the appellant there was a brief by Bradford & Gdbert of Appleton, attorneys, and Michael, Spohn, Best & Fried-rich of Milwaukee of counsel, and oral argument by Joseph R. Filachek of Milwaukee.
For the respondents there was a brief by Sigman, Sigman & Shiff of Appleton, and oral argument by Abraham Sigman.

Opinion:
Currie, J.
None of the 21 plaintiffs was in the employ of the company on the date of May 24, 1951, when the collective-bargaining agreement was entered into between the company and the union. All had been employees at sometime prior to that date, but had quit or been laid off sometime between June 30, 1950, and May 24, 1951. The issue on the merits is whether the amendment of the trust contracted for in such labor agreement applies to these plaintiffs or whether the same is limited in its application to production employees actually in the employ of the company on May 24, 1951. However, we do not reach such issue because of our conclusion that the plaintiffs have sued the wrong party as defendant.
The company did not undertake by its covenant in the collective-bargaining agreement of May 24, 1951, to itself pay to any of its employees the amounts credited to their accounts with the trust as of June 30, 1950. Instead, the covenant of the company was to amend the trust so as to provide "for the payment to them of their respective shares" as of such date "unreduced by any forfeiture provision" of the trust. Such language is capable of no- other reasonable interpretation than that the payment of such trust shares to the employees entitled thereto under such covenant was to be made from the trust and not by the company.
A cause of action would lie against the company if it had breached its covenant to amend the trust in the respect agreed upon. If successful in such a suit, the damages recoverable by the plaintiffs might be measured by the amounts they were deprived from receiving from the trust because of such breach. However, the plaintiffs' complaints are not grounded on such a premise. On the contrary, such complaints specifically allege that the trust was amended pursuant to the labor agreement of May 24, 1951, in the respect agreed upon.
Inasmuch as the company fully performed its covenant to amend the trust as agreed upon, if the plaintiffs have any cause of action, it lies against the trustees of the trust and not the company. We deem it would be improper for us at this time to pass upon the issue of whether the plaintiffs constituted members of the class who were to benefit from the amendment. This is because if the plaintiffs were ultimately to prevail it would be at the expense of the trust accounts of other participants, who would thereby be deprived of the benefit of the forfeiture provisions of the trust otherwise ap plicable to the accounts of the plaintiffs when their employment terminated. These other participants are entitled to the representation of the trustees of the trust in combating the claims of the plaintiffs. This was not had in the instant actions.
By the Court. — Judgments reversed, and causes remanded with directions to dismiss the complaints.