Court Opinion

ID: 9455899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:36:47.641072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:46.820590
License: Public Domain

McALLISTER, Senior Circuit Judge
(concurring).
It is my view that even though it be considered that Strutz, as the Company’s agent, was not authorized to state that the matter of vacation pay, as proposed by the Union, was “company policy” and was acceptable to the Company, it was the duty of the Company’s President, Charles Seyfert, for whom Strutz was acting, to repudiate any unauthorized statement of Strutz which did not meet with his approval, and that his failure to do so, either subsequent to the negotiations or as soon thereafter as he had heard of it, or at any time during the protracted proceedings and hearing, where he did not even appear as a witness, resulted in a ratification of the statement of Strutz that the matter of vacation pay proposed by the Union was acceptable to the Company.