Court Opinion

ID: 9616787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:49:42.304906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:01.581336
License: Public Domain

DOOLIN, Justice,
dissenting:
The City of Oklahoma City (City) terminated plaintiff’s employment as a firefighter. Pursuant to certain Oklahoma City Employees Grievances Procedures contained in an union collective bargaining agreement, plaintiff sought review of his discharge. In accordance with these procedures plaintiff received a hearing before the Union Grievance Committee and the Grievance Review Board. The decision to uphold his termination was affirmed by the City Manager. Plaintiff then instituted the present action in district court for breach of his contract of employment, namely the contract between City and the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1524 (Union).
The case was tried to a jury who returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $20,978.00. City filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing, district court had no subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy. This motion was sustained and plaintiff appeals.
The City did not move for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence, a prerequisite for an evidentiary review by motion notwithstanding the verdict.1 Thus only jurisdiction of the trial court and not evidence was challenged by the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict:
“The question of whether or not the (plaintiff’s) motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been sustained depends upon whether or not her motion for a directed verdict, made at the close of all of the evidence, should have been granted.” McInturff v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Transmission Company, 475 P.2d 160 (Okl.1970).
12 O.S.1971 Supp. § 698:
“When a motion for a directed verdict which was made at the close of all of the evidence should have been granted, the court shall, at the request of the moving party, render judgment in his favor though a verdict has been found against him ...”
The contract between City and Union incorporated the grievance procedures. City did not argue plaintiff failed to exhaust his administration remedies,2 only that the administrative decision is final and may not be attacked in district court.
It is true the grievance procedures provide a remedy to an aggrieved employee dismissed, in his opinion, without cause, and that an affirmance by the City Manager is final. Plaintiff’s petition however, sought damages for breach of contract. City supports its claim challenging jurisdiction by citing City of Midwest City v. Harris, 561 P.2d 1357 (Okl.1977). That case involved a writ granted by this court prohibiting further proceedings in trial court wherein firefighter’s union sought a declaratory judgment interpreting a collective bargaining *930agreement. This court held because petitioner failed to pursue its exclusive remedy of arbitration the district court had no jurisdiction under the statutory procedure of 11 O.S.1971 § 548.1 et seq., presently 11 O.S.1977 Supp. § 51-101 et seq. It was not a breach of contract suit. When the employee in the Midwest City case didn’t follow grievances procedures he had no suit in district court.
The district court does have subject matter jurisdiction over an alleged breach of an employment contract. Whether the petition states a cause of action or if the contract was indeed violated are not ordinarily jurisdictional issues.
The sole question before us and the trial court is that of jurisdiction of the subject matter, breach of contract. City can submit no cases involving lack of jurisdiction in district court to hear plaintiff’s breach of contract suit.
One other point: the majority interprets Harris as ruling “the district court lacked jurisdiction”. This is too simplified and may be subject to some misinterpretation. Harris says the district court only lacked jurisdiction at that point in time because the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Arbitration was first required. There should be no question that the district court has jurisdiction of the subject matter in question in the instant case, breach of contract.
Trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict based on lack of jurisdiction.
I am authorized to state that Justice Simms and Justice Hargrave concur in the views herein expressed.

. Fuhring v. Chicago R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 97 Okl. 43, 222 P. 690 (1924) and Nelson v. Texas Incorporated, 525 P.2d 1263 (Okl.App.1974).

. Martin v. Harrah Independent School District, 543 P.2d 1370 (Okl.1976).