![]() Defendant Brunton, testifying under section 2055 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stated he was first advised by one Petty, director of labor relations between Kaiser and the union, that plaintiff's job was in jeopardy about ten days prior to his being suspended, and that he sent word to plaintiff to come and see him about his grievance but plaintiff never contacted him that Petty called plaintiff and indicated that unless he straightened out his problems, the Kaiser Company did not intend to let him go back to work that under the contract with Kaiser or the Constitution and by-laws of the union, any dispute that arises under them should first be initiated by the employee claiming the grievance and he never did file a complaint under the contract or under the constitution and that he never said or did anything to have plaintiff suspended or discharged by Kaiser. It was not indicated that plaintiff made any effort to initiate proceedings for such a hearing. Plaintiff was advised to go to the grievance committee. ![]() The evidence shows that plaintiff telephoned a member of the union that he had been suspended and that the foreman would not permit him to go to work and would not issue him a time card. ![]() The method usually adopted in suspending a worker is for the foreman to verbally suspend him by sending the man home or giving him a written slip so indicating. He claims this procedure was not followed in that he was not first suspended. Plaintiff refers to the agreement between the union and Kaiser providing that no employee shall be peremptorily discharged without first being suspended. Plaintiff knew of these arrangements and accepted them. According to the testimony, plaintiff came to Kaiser "with an unsavory record" and Brunton was assigned to be responsible for him before Kaiser would hire him. It also appears that Downie filed charges against Kaiser with the National Labor Relations Board for wrongful discharge and there was a compromise or settlement of this claim. It appears that about April 19, 1952, plaintiff's employment card at the plant was "pulled" and he was advised to see defendant Brunton before he went to work again. This evidence brought out that Kaiser had advised its employees that it was against the rules of the company for the employees to pass out any literature regarding union elections on its premises, and plaintiff was passing out some of it and engaging in union electioneering on the premises. Plaintiff called several witnesses under section 2055 of the Code of Civil Procedure in support of his claim, and as to the general setup in the union in relation to the hearing of grievances of the employees. Damages are sought for claimed loss of seniority in defendants' union, loss of benefit of membership, companionship, loss of convenience, for mental anguish and humiliation, and for exemplary damages. Plaintiff's complaint is in three counts, (1) in tort alleging that defendants wrongfully procured his discharge (2) in contract, alleging the constitution and by-laws of defendants constituted a contract between them, and defendants violated it in procuring his discharge and (3) in contract, alleging breach of an oral agreement between plaintiff and the defendants by inducing Kaiser to discharge plaintiff. Plaintiff was on a so-called "probationary status" to him. Defendant Brunton was an agent of the other defendants, had office space, and as such, maintained a grievance room at Kaiser's plant. He was discharged by Kaiser on April 19, 1952. Plaintiff and appellant was employed by Kaiser Steel Company (hereinafter referred to as Kaiser) in the early part of April, 1952, and was then a member of defendants and respondents United Steel Workers of America, Local 2869 and United Steel Workers of America. WILLIAM BRUNTON et al., Respondents.Īlgerdas N.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |