Opinion ID: 1194280
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Existence of written collective bargaining agreements.

Text: The jury was presented with a series of five interrogatories which they were asked to answer in arriving at their decision. Special interrogatory No. 1 asked the jury: Did the plaintiff's [Trust Funds] prove that there existed a written collective bargaining agreement signed by both Teamster Union Local 38 (the Union) and the defendants, for each of the following periods: a. 1968-1971 ANSWER: ____ (Yes or No) b. 1971-1974 ANSWER: ____ (Yes or No) c. 1974-1977 ANSWER: ____ (Yes or No) Clerk's Papers, at 8. The jury answered No for each of the three contract periods. Petitioners have dropped their appeal as to the 1968-71 contract, but as to the other two periods there was no dispute as to the existence of the 1971 and 1974 written contracts. In fact, Mr. Cohen admitted having read and signed the 1971 and 1974 contracts, and those documents were admitted into evidence. [1] The credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given the evidence are matters which rest within the province of the jury; and, even if the court were convinced that a wrong verdict had been rendered, it should not substitute its judgment for that of the jury so long as there was evidence which, if believed, would support the verdict rendered. Burke v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 64 Wn.2d 244, 246, 391 P.2d 194 (1964). The court will overturn a jury's verdict only rarely and then only when it is clear that there was no substantial evidence upon which the jury could have rested its verdict. State v. O'Connell, 83 Wn.2d 797, 839, 523 P.2d 872, 77 A.L.R.3d 874 (1974); Valente v. Bailey, 74 Wn.2d 857, 859, 447 P.2d 589 (1968). Here, we find no substantial evidence to support the jury's conclusion that the written contracts did not exist. Perhaps the jury believed that without a manifestation of intent to be bound, there was no document which embodied the agreement of the parties. This reasoning, however, does not respond to the interrogatory posed, and the answer No as to the existence of the 1971-74 and 1974-77 contracts is simply unsupported by the evidence. Therefore, we find that by producing signed copies of the 1971-74 and 1974-77 contracts, the petitioners did prove the existence of those written documents.