Opinion ID: 2150565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the fine for conduct unbecoming a union member on so vague a charge as to be unenforceable

Text: While courts will not enforce contracts when the terms are so vague that they cannot with reasonable certainty ascertain the intent of the parties, they will, if possible, attach sufficiently definite meaning to the intent of the parties to enforce the contract. Shetney v. Shetney (1970), 49 Wis. 2d 26, 181 N. W. 2d 516. While the term, conduct unbecoming a union member is arguably vague (Summers, Legal Limitations on Union Discipline, 64 Harvard Law Rev. (1951), 1049, and Comment, Court Enforcement of Union Fines, 25 Washington & Lee Law Rev. (1968), 273), the term as used in the instant case is precisely defined by the resolution in which it appears. The union resolution creating the production ceilings provided that violation of a ceiling by a member would subject him to a fine of one dollar for each violation. The $100 fine was levied against Scofield pursuant to the portion of the same resolution which provided: In case of persistent and/or flagrant violations [of the ceiling], a member may be charged with conduct unbecoming a union member. This language leaves no doubt that repeated violations of the production ceiling constitute such prohibited conduct. The obligation of the union member in regard to production ceilings is not vague.