Opinion ID: 1251568
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defendants' fourth affirmative defense.

Text: Defendants alleged as a fourth affirmative defense that: II `Article III of the labor agreement referenced in Exhibit A reads, in part, as follows: `     `Section 2. Any party hereto desiring termination, modification or changes in this Agreement to take effect subsequent to May 31, 1971, or to take effect for any agreement year subsequent to May 31, 1971, shall serve written notice on the other party at interest on or before March 1, prior to the end of each such agreement year, requesting negotiation.' `     `Defendant has never received such notice nor any other notice concerning the 1971-1973 contract alleged in paragraph III of the complaint, nor has defendant ever agreed to or signed such contract. Defendant is therefore not bound to the alleged 1971-1973 contract.' The contract provision quoted in defendants' answer was included in the Master Labor Agreement and its reference is to the parties to that agreement. However, a separate memorandum agreement was signed by defendant Kelly, and is attached as an exhibit to plaintiffs' complaint. That agreement includes the following provision: 7. This memorandum Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until May 31, 1971 and shall continue from year to year thereafter unless either party shall give written notice to the other of a desire to change or cancel it at least sixty days prior to May 31, 1971, or May 31 of any succeeding year. The Employer and the Unions shall be bound by any renewals or extensions of the Master Agreement and the Trust Agreements, or any new agreements, unless an appropriate written notice is given to the other party at least sixty days prior to May 31, 1971, or any subsequent year of their intent not to be bound by any new, renewed or extended agreement. (Emphasis added) The memorandum agreement also incorporates by reference the master agreement, except as to such terms as are specifically excluded by this Memorandum. It may be that the notice provision of the master agreement was not specifically excluded in the memorandum agreement. We believe it to be clear, however, that the notice provision of that agreement was intended to apply to the parties to that master agreement and that upon signing the memorandum agreement defendants were bound by any renewals of the master agreement, as provided by § 7 of the memorandum agreement. It follows that the trial court did not err in sustaining plaintiffs' demurrer to this affirmative defense.