Court Opinion

ID: 9663585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:43:46.399581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:52.518028
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
STRUTZ, Judge.
The defendant, Queen City Packing Company, has petitioned for a rehearing in this case on the grounds that:
1. The instruction of the trial court to the effect that any plaintiff, to be entitled to recover, must have been discharged solely because of his labor union activities, was a proper instruction; and
2. That the complaint of the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action.
The trial court in this case instructed the jury, in part, as follows :
“The burden is on each plaintiff to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence * * * (4) That defendant, employer, deprived plaintiffs of their privileges to so organize as employees of defendant company, by discharging each one, solely because of his efforts in attempting to organize a labor union.
⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜
“ * * * Plowevcr, if you find by a fair preponderance of the evidence that *455defendant discharged any plaintiff solely because of his affiliation with a labor union, such act would be an unfair labor practice, and would entitle any plaintiff so discharged to a verdict herein.
“However, if you find that the defendant discharged any plaintiff for just cause, and not solely because of his affiliation with a labor union, then such plaintiff would not be entitled to recover herein, and your verdict should be for the defendant as against such plaintiff.”
The defendant contends that, since an employer has a right to discharge an employee either for cause or without any cause, and that since the only cause he is prohibited from using as a ground for discharge is the union activities of his employee, the instruction that the sole cause for such discharge must have been the union activities of the employee in order to make such discharge illegal, was perfectly proper.
We do not believe that there is any merit to this reasoning. While the only ground which would make such discharge unlawful would be a discharge for union. activities, an employer may discharge an employee for any other reason. Thus several grounds may motivate an employer in discharging an employee. We reaffirm the view adopted by this court in its opinion to the effect that to make such discharge unlawful the motivating or the real cause for such discharge must have been union activities of the employee; and that an instruction that union activities must have been the sole cause of the discharge is error.
The defendant also contends that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, pointing out that the plaintiffs in their complaint allege that the defendant’s acts were in violation of Section 34-0901 of the 1953 Supplement to the North Dakota Revised Code of 1943, which section is a declaration of public policy of the State of North Dakota, and which section provides no penalty for violation. The section referred to provides that any worker shall be free to decline association with his fellow workers, shall be free to obtain employment wherever it is possible to obtain employment, and shall also be free to organize with his fellow workers if he so desires.
A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain a short and plain statement of the claim, showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and shall set forth a demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled. Rule 8 (a), N.D. Rules of Civil Procedure.
The complaint in the case before us alleges that plaintiffs were employees of the defendant; that an election was held among the eligible employees to determine whether the Teamsters -Union, Local 123, was to represent the employees; that the plaintiffs voted in said election in favor of the union; that prior to the election the defendant had informed the plaintiffs that anyone voting for the union would be discharged; and that subsequent to the election the defendant notified the plaintiffs that they were discharged and that their discharge was because of their union activities. Plaintiffs further alleged that the acts of the defendant were in violation of Section 34-0901 of the 1953 Supplement to the North Dakota Revised Code of 1943, which section states the public policy of the State giving to workers the right to organize or to decline to organize.
Pleadings, under rules of civil procedure, are to be liberally construed, and a complaint is not subject to dismissal if any relief can be granted under any set of facts which can be proved in support of its allegations. Defendant was put on notice, by the allegations of the complaint, that the basis of plaintiffs’ claim was their discharge because of union activities. Under the rule referred to above, plaintiffs’ complaint does state a cause of action.
Petition for rehearing denied.
SATHRE, C. J., and MORRIS, BURKE and TEIGEN, JJ., concur.