HANNIFIN v RETAIL CLERKS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12271 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F 1973 MAYME 0 ' CONNELL HANNIF I N , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION and VERN RHINEHART, Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable John B . McClernan, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Thomas Joyce, B u t t e , Montana. Benjamin H i l l e y argued, Great F a l l s , Montana. P a t r i c k Paul, Great F a l l s , Montana. For Respondent: Henningsen and P u r c e l l , B u t t e , Montana. James P u r c e l l argued, B u t t e , Montana. Donald C Robinson argued, B u t t e , Montana. . Submitted: Decided : Filed :MRY 4 \973 ... .'? ,j,j . .J) / " ..., lp . 1 . i ..:'.G-7 ) * - I f 0 , : --" 4 ,A , i '2 / ' Clerk March 29, 1973 lJlm4 ~$EI M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s an a p p e a l from a j u r y v e r d i c t rendered i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of S i l v e r Bow County a g a i n s t defendant R e t a i l Clerks I n t e r n a t i o n a l Association, The a c t i o n was brought by Mayme ~ ' ~ o n n e l l Hannifin a l l e g i n g among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e R e t a i l Clerks I n t e r n a t i o n a l Associati.on had induced R e t a i l C l e r k s Union Local No, 4 t o breach i t s employment c o n t r a c t w i t h h e r , Before reaching t h e major i s s u e we d i s p o s e of two p r e l i m i n a r y matters. F i r s t i s defendant's (appellant herein) challenge t o t h i s C o u r t ' s and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n . This c h a l l e n g e i s based on d e f e n d a n t ' s view t h a t t h i s i s a "labor law1' c a s e and a s such i s governed by f e d e r a l law. I n a r e c e n t d e c i s i o n , Motor Coach Employees v . Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, 91 S.Ct, 1909, 29 L ed 2d 473, t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court r e a f f i r m e d t h e preemption by t h e United S t a t e s of t h e complete law of l a b o r r e l a t i o n s . While t h i s i s t r u e , under our view o f t h e f a c t s and law i n t h i s c a s e no l a b o r law i s s u e i s p r e s e n t e d which need be r e s o l v e d by f e d e r a l l a b o r law. The f a c t s i n Motor Coach Employees show i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g agreement, Nothing even s i m i l a r i s found i n t h i s c a s e , a s w i l l h e r e i n a f t e r appear, Second i s p l a i n t i f f ' s t h e appeal. (respondent h e r e i n ) motion t o d i s m i s s This motion was based on d e f e n d a n t ' s a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o f i l e t h e r e c o r d w i t h i n t h e time l i m i t s e t o u t i n Montana A p p e l l a t e Rules of C i v i l Procedure, 20, 1971. The n o t i c e of a p p e a l was f i l e d on December S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r defendant ordered a t r a n s c r i p t of t h e proceedings from t h e o f f i c i a l c o u r t r e p o r t e r . When i t became a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e t r a n s c r i p t would n o t be ready w i t h i n t h e f o r t y days provided i n Rule I O ( a ) , M.R.App.Civ.P,, defendant moved t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t under Rule l o @ ) f o r a n i n e t y day e x t e n s i o n of time f o r t h e f i l i n g of t h e record, E i t h e r through e r r o r by t h e defendant o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , t h e o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e motion gave defendant u n t i l A p r i l 28, 1972, t o f i l e t h e record. Under t h e r u l e an e x t e n s i o n should be g r a n t e d from t h e d a t e of t h e f i l i n g o f t h e n o t i c e of a p p e a l , In t h i s case t h e e x t e n s i o n should have been granted u n t i l March 19, 1-972. O n A p r i l 28, 1972, defendant f i l e d an o r d e r w i t h t h i s Court a s k i n g f o r a t h i r t y day e x t e n s i o n , which was granted. unknown t o defendant, t h e r e c o r d was f i l e d , On t h a t same day, It i s on t h e b a s i s of t h i s l a t e f i l i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f c l a i m s t h e appeal should be d i s missed, I t appears from d e f e n d a n t ' s b r i e f on a p p e a l t h a t t h e d i f f i c u l t y was a l a c k o f communication between counsel f o r defendant and t h e c o u r t r e p o r t e r , which r e s u l t e d i n t h e - d e l a y . App,Civ.P., Under Rule 1 0 ( c ) , M,R. t h i s Court h a s wide d i s c r e t i o n i n p e r m i t t i n g t h e f i l i n g of a r e c o r d . The p e r t i n e n t p o r t i o n of t h a t r u l e r e a d s : "If t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s without a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t t h e r e l i e f sought o r h a s denied a r e q u e s t t h e r e f o r , t h e supreme c o u r t may on motion extend t h e time f o r t r a n s m i t t i n g t h e r e c o r d o r may permit t h e record t o be t r z n s m i t t e d and f i l e d a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e time allowed o r f i x e d . " Montana's r u l e i s i d e n t i c a l t o t h e f e d e r a l r u l e and f o r t h a t reason t h e following f e d e r a l a u t h o r i t y i s p e r s u a s i v e , Laborers I n t e r n a t . U , of No. America, I n King v. U,L. No. 818, 443 F.2d 273, 276 (6th C i r . 1971), t h e c o u r t h e l d where t h e r e c o r d had been f i l e d w i t h i n t h e f o r t y days allowed and t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f had n o t been timely f i l e d : "The r u l e s c i t e d by Appellee a r e s t a t e d i n perm i s s i v e , r a t h e r than mandatory language, W a r e e n o t r e q u i r e d t o d i s m i s s every a p p e a l which does n o t meet each of t h e time l i m i t a t i o n s i n t h e abovestated rules. t1 A s s t a t e d h e r e t o f o r e , t h i s Court h a s d i s c r e t i o n i n t h i s type of c a s e , and where, a s h e r e , s e r i o u s i s s u e s a r e presented f o r review we wj.11 n o t d i s m i s s t h e appeal. The a c t i o n was brought o r i g i n a l l y a g a i n s t t h e l o c a l union f o r breach of c o n t r a c t . A f t e r d i s c o v e r y proceedings, t h e complajmt was amended t o i n c l u d e t h e r e t a i l Clerks I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n , a l l e g i n g t h a t t h a t A s s o c i a t i o n had unlawfully induced t h e breach of p l a i n t i f f ' s employment c o n t r a c t , A t t h e c l o s e of p l a i n t i f f ' s c a s e , t h e Local Union, one of defendants, moved f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on a l l f o u r counts of t h e complaint; count one being concerned w i t h whether t h e c o n t r a c t of employment had been breached, The L o c a l ' s motion, a s t o count one, was made on t h e ground t h e e v i dence d i d n o t show t h a t p l a i n t i f f had been discharged, I n response t o t h e motion, counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f s a i d : "IJith r e f e r e n c e t o t h i s , l e t t h e r e c o r d show t h a t t h e P l z i n t i f f w i l l submit, a s t o t h e R e t a i l Clerks Union Number 4 , t h a t t h e y w i l l submit t h e i r motion i s w e l l taken a s t o counts one, two, t h r e e and f o u r of t h e complaint and I would a s k on b e h a l f of m y c l i e n t t h a t t h e compl-aint b e dismissed a s t o t h e Local Union. 11 The complaint w a s disrnj-ssed a s t o t h e Local Union. P l a i n t i f f , Mayme Hannifin, served a s b u s i n e s s agents e c r e t a r y - t r e a s u r e r o f Local Eb,4 &cm J u l y 1954 when s h e was appointed t o f i l l an unexpired term, u n t i l h e r a l l e g e d d i s c h a r g e i n 1969. Her term of o f f i c e would have e x p i r e d i n December 1970, The i n c i d e n t s l e a d i n g t o t h e c o n t r o v e r s y took. p l a c e i n September and e a r l y October, 1969. On September 22, 1969, Vern Rhinehart went t o B u t t e i n h i s c a p a c i t y a s a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Association. A e x e c u t i v e board meeting was c a l l e d f o r n t h e n i g h t of September 22, There i s d i s p u t e i n t h e testimony a s t o whether i t w a s a t ~ h i n e h a r t ' s u r g i n g t h a t t h i s meeting was called. P r e s e n t a t t h e meeting were Bernard McGarry, p r e s i d e n t of t h e Local; J e r r y Kal-archik, v i c e - p r e s i d e n t ; William C. Smyers, r e c o r d i n g s e c r e t a r y ; P a t s y Thomas, o f f i c e s e c r e t a r y and c l e r k f o r t h e Local; and Mr-Rhinehart. Mrs. Hannifin d i d n o t a t t e n d t h e meeting and t h e r e i s c o n t r o v e r s y i n t h e testimony a s t o whether she was n o t i f i e d of t h e meeting. Mr. Smyers, t e s t i f y i n g as an adverse w i t n e s s f o r p l a i n t i f f , s t a t e d : * If* Jc t h a t t h e r e a s o n t h e meeting was c a l l e d was t h a t Vern m n e h a r t j was i n town t o f i n d out i f he could s t r a i g h t e n o u t t h e c o n t r a c t t h a t was due i n D i l l o n Jc * *." The d i s c u s s i o n then turned t o t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s t h e Local was having w i t h M r s . Hannifin. Again M r . Smyers t e s t i f i e d : ** "9: and a l s o he mentioned about Mayme missing t h e meeting i n Great F a l l s and then we s t a r t e d d i s c u s s i n g h e r frequent absences from work. '" This d i s c u s s i o n apparently r e s u l t e d i n t h e o f f i c e r s asking f o r M r . ~ h i n e h a r t ' sadvice, He gave t h e Local t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s : (1) they could ask t h e I n t e r n a t i o n t o put t h e Local under a t r u s t e e s h i p , (2) charges could be brought a g a i n s t Mrs, Hannifin and a f t e r t r i a l she could be remaved from o f f i c e , o r ( 3 ) nothing. t h e Local could do The board members then asked M r . Rhinehart t o leave t h e meeting so they could d i s c u s s the matter, The board, with t h e exception of the International for a trusteeship. McGarry, voted t o ask This would have meant, i f approved by I n t e r n a t i o n a l , a l l t h e o f f i c e r s of t h e Local would have been removed and someone appointed by I n t e r n a t i o n a l would t a k e charge of t h e management of t h e Local. approved by I n t e r n a t i o n a l . The t r u s t e e s h i p was n o t A l l members of t h e board voted f o r t h e t r u s t e e s h i p , except M r , McGarry, and they signed a l e t t e r t o t h a t e f f e c t addressed t o l n t e r n a t i . o n a l t s p r e s i d e n t . On t h e following day another member of t h e board, not present t h a t n i g h t , signed t h e l e t t e r and i t was mailed, On September 24, Mrs, ~ a n n i f i n ' ss i s t e r , M r s , Jewel1 McLeod, took some dues s l i p s t o t h e union o f f i c e f o r Mrs. Hannifin. Mrs. ~ c ~ e a d testimony was t h a t Patsy Thomas t o l d h e r a t t h a t time t h a t 's visit Mrs. Hannifin's job ' b a s gone". During t h i s /patsy Thomas gave M r s . McLeod t h e union check book so t h a t h e r s i s t e r could sign some checks. had Mrs. Hannif i n t e s t i f i e d t h a t she / t h i s telephone conversation with Patsy Thomas t h a t same day: "I c a l l e d Patsy on t h e morning; t h e morning of t h e 24th and I s a i d , ' p a t s y a r e you mad a t me? , She s a i d , no, b u t I b e l i e v e everybody e l s e i s , I s a i d , ' I w i l l be up i n a l i t t l e while. I She s a i d , 'you don't have t o come up. Your job i s a l l through, Vem Rhinehart was here Monday n i g h t and w e had a meeting of t h e exeeut i v e board and you a r e a l l f i n i s h e d . I pleaded with them and everythi.ng. H s a i d t h e r e was nothing you could do, e He was t u r n i n g t h e Union i n t o a t r u s t e e s h i p . There was nothing t h a t could be done about i t a t a l l , "' A f t e r t h i s conversation Mrs. Hannifin made no attempt t o c o n t a c t any of t h e o f f i c e r s of t h e Local t o e i t h e r s u b s t a n t i a t e o r confirm what she had been t o l d by P a t s y Thomas. A s a m a t t e r of f a c t , M r s . Hannifin f i l e d f o r unemployment i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s on September 29, t h e same day she v i s i t e d t h e union o f f i c e t o r e q u e s t h e r l a s t week's paycheck and v a c a t i o n pay due h e r . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t M r . Thomas Evankovich was p r e s e n t i n t h e o f f i c e t h a t morning and s h e thought he had been s e n t i n by I n t e r n a t i o n a l t o run t h e Loca 1. The t r i a l c e n t e r e d around t h e i s s u e o f whether, by t h e a c t i o n s of Rhinehart, t h e Local was induced t o breach i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h Mrs. Hannifin, P l a i n t i f f ' s t h e o r y was t h a t by t h e a c t i o n of Rhine- h a r t t h e Local r e q u e s t e d t h e t r u s t e e s h i p and Mrs, Hannifin was r e m ~ v e dfrom o f f i c e . The c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e i s whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t a t t h e end of p l a i n t i f f ' s c a s e i n c h i e f , Motions f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s a r e provided f o r by Rule 50, M.R,Civ.P. I n Mueller v. Svejkovsky, 153 Mont, 416, 420, 458 P.2d 265, t h i s Court e s t a b l i s h e d t h r e e r u l e s which apply on an a p p e a l from a motion denying a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t : "On an a p p e a l from a motion denying a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t t h e r e a r e t h r e e r u l e s which apply. (1) The evidence introduced by t h e p l a f n t i f f w i l l b e considered i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o him, (2) The conclusion sought t o be drawn from t h e f a c t s must follow a s a m a t t e r o f law, (3) Only t h e evidence of t h e p l a i n t i f f w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d , P i c k e t t v , Kyger, 151 Mont, 87, 439 P,2d 57," I n l i g h t of t h e s e r u l e s , t h i s Court cannot r e a c h t h e conclus i o n t h e evidence produced would permit a j u r y t o f i n d t h a t I n t e r n a t i o n a l had induced t h e Local t o d i s c h a r g e Mrs, Hannifin. It i s impossible t o f i n d a n y t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d which would l e a d t o t h e conclusion M r s . Hannifin was discharged a t a l l . A s h a s been p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , t h e r e q u e s t f o r t r u s t e e s h i p was denied by I n t e r national. The only testimony concerning Mrs. H a n n i f i n ' s d i s c h a r g e came from p l a i n t i f f h e r s e l f , By h e r o m testimony s h e i n d i c a t e s h e r " b e l i e f " t h a t t h e a l l e g e d d i s c h a r g e occurred a t t h e e x e c u t i v e board meeting on September 22. Her testimony was: "Q. Ffia f i r e d you, Mayme? A, Well, I would say t h a t Vern Rhinehart through t h e e x e c u t i v e board, "Q. Well, why do you s a y t h a t ? A . Because when I t a l k e d t o Patsy t h a t morning she t o l d m Vern Rhinehart e had advised t h e e x e c u t i v e board t h a t t h e y were going i n t o a t r u s t e e s h i p and I was a l l through, There was a b s o l u t e l y n o t h i n g I could do about i t . "Q, A. Did Rhinehart himself t e l l you you were f i r e d ? No. Did any member of t h e e x e c u t i v e board t e l l you "Q. you were f i r e d ? A. No, h u t Patsy Thomas d i d . "Q. I s she on t h e e x e c u t i v e board? A, "Q. What i s h e r s t a t u s with t h e Union? s h e i s a c l e r k of t h e Union. "Q, Did you h i r e h e r o r d i d they--A. No, she i s n o t . A. 1 ' d say I hired her, "Q. Did she hold o f f i c e a t your p l e a s u r e w h i l e you were t h e r e . A. Yes, she d i d , You could have f i r e d h e r i f you didn ' t think. "Q, s h e was doing a good j o b , r i g h t ? A. Yes, "Q. She had no a u t h o r i t y t o f i r e you? A. No, she d i d n ' t , b u t t h e e x e c u t i v e board a s such could have, "Qq, How i s t h a t ? How could t h e e x e c u t i v e board f i r e you? e A. Because s h e t o l d m they had taken a procedure, t h e y had gone i n t o a t r u s t e e s h i p s o i f you go i n t o a t r u s t e e s h i p you a r e f i r e d , "Q. Did she a c t u a l l y go i n on---A. Q . Did you i n q u i r e ? I d i d n ' t know t h i s . No, I d i d n ' t because s h e s a i d She s a i d you There i s j u s t n o t h i n g t h a t can be A, i t s j u s t a l l s e a l e d , signed and d e l i v e r e d . are fired t h a t ' s it. done, "Q, What a u t h o r i t y d i d she have to---A. e mine I t h i n k she t o l d m t h a t . As a f r i e n d of So you r e a l l y d o n ' t know whether i t d i d go i n t o a "Q, t r u s t e e s h i p o r n o t ? A. No, I d i d n ' t know, 11 Q. W o i s t h e c h i e f e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r of t h e Local Union? h A, I was t h e c h i e f e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r of t h e Local Union. "Q. You were t h e b o s s ? A. And I was t h e b o s s , And you were f a m i l i a r w i t h c o n s t i t u t i o n g e n e r a l l y I "Q. suppose? A, Yes, I was, I I The Colorado Court of Appeals i n Colorado C i v i l Rights Com'n v , S t a t e School D i s t , No, 1, (Col,kpp.l971), 488 P.2d 83, 8 6 , e s t a b l i s h e d a t e s t t o determine whether a person has been discharged: he f a c t of d i s c h a r g e does n o t depend upon t h e use of formal words of f i r i n g . The t e s t i s whether s u f f i c i e n t words o r a c t i o n s by t h e employer 'would l o g i c a l l y l e a d a prudent person t o b e l i e v e h i s t e n u r e had been t e r m i n a t e d , I' W b e l i e v e t h i s t o be a proper t e s t and we adopt i t f o r use i n e t h i s case, It must b e p a i n t e d o u t t h a t Mrs.Hannifin was n o t an employee who could b e discharged a t t h e w i l l of h e r employer. She was an e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l of t h e union, chosen f o r h e r p o s i t i o n by t h e e n t i r e membership of t h e Local, The Local had e s t a b l i s h e d procedures f o r t h e removal of j.ts e l e c t i v e o f f i c e r s . A r t i c l e V, S e c t i o n 11, o f i t s c o n s t i t u t i o n r e a d s : " A l l t h e o f f i c e r s s h a l l s e r v e f o r t h e p e r i o d of t h e i r e l e c t i o n u n l e s s removed f o r incompetency, n e g l e c t of d u t y , o r d i s h o n e s t y , i n accordance w i t h t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Association. II The I n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n s t i t u t i o n provides procedure f o r t h e removal of l o c a l union o f f i c e r s , The evidence p r e s e n t e d by p l a i n - t i f f can b e s t b e summed up i n t h e statement made by Mrs, Hannifin on cross-examination. She responded t o t h e q u e s t i o n : II J u s t what information do you have t h a t t h e Zntern a t i o n a l f i r e d you?" w i t h " J u s t what Patsy gave me and what I heard around t o m and a l l k i n d s of t h i n g s t h a t were s a i d . " This i s h a r d l y t h e t y p e of information which would l e a d There a prudent person t o b e l i e v e t h a t she had been discharged. i s n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d t o show t h a t Mrs. Hannifin e v e r t a l k e d t o anybody i n a u t h o r i t y i n t h e Local t o confirm h e r d i s c h a r g e , It h a s Her only source of information was t h e o f f i c e s e c r e t a r y , long been h e l d t h a t an agent of an employer cannot d i s c h a r g e a n o t h e r employee, u n l e s s he h a s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o da so. Pantages, 90 Wash, 271, 155 P. 1070, Amann v , N testimony was presented o which would i n d i c a t e Patsy Thomas was empowered t o speak f o r t h e Local. To t h e c o n t r a r y , M r s . Hannifin was h e r s u p e r v i s o r , E a r l i e r i n t h i s opinion we p a i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e complaint was dismissed a s t o t h e Local Union on t h e s p e c i f i c count t h a t r e f e r r e d t o t h e a l l e g e d d i s c h a r g e o r breach of c o n t r a c t ; and t h a t c o u n s e l f o r p l a i n t i f f agreed t h e motion f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t was w e l l taken. C l e a r l y t h a t was c o r r e c t ; and, j u s t a s c l e a r l y , i f t h e r e was no breach of c o n t r a c t by t h e Local Union, t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union could n o t have induced a breach t h a t d i d n o t occur. T h e r e f o r e , we hold a s a m a t t e r of law t h a t t h e r e was no f a c t u a l d i s p u t e over which r e a s o n a b l e men could d i s p u t e and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d verdict. Other i s s u e s r a i s e d on t h i s a p p e a l need n o t b e d i s c u s s e d i n view of t h e r e s u l t reached, The judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e a c t i o n dismissed. W Concur: e ' A n . Jack Shanstrorn, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g for M K ~Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison. M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d i s s e n t i n g : I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t t o t h e view o f t h e m a j o r i t y . The m a j o r i t y opinion c o n t r a d i c t s one of our l o n g e s t s t a n d i n g and most f r e q u e n t l y r e p e a t e d p r i n c i p l e s of a p p e l l a t e j u r i s p r u dence, I n t h e r e c e n t c a s e of Resner v. Northern P a c i f i c Railway, Mont . 505 P.2d 86, 89, 30 %.Rep. quoted from Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 55,60, t h i s Court 645, 66 S.Ct. 740, 90 L Ed 11 1 Whenever f a c t s a r e i n d i s p u t e o r t h e evidence i s such t h a t fair-minded men may draw d i f f e r e n t i n f e r e n c e s , a measure of s p e c u l a t i o n o r c o n j e c t u r e i s r e q u i r e d on t h e p a r t of t h o s e whose duty i t i s t o s e t t l e t h e d i s p u t e by choosing what seems t o them t o be t h e most r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e . Only when t h e r e i s a complete absence of p r o b a t i v e f a c t s t o support t h e conclusion reached does a r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r appear, But where f: * t h e r e i s a n e v i dentiary basis f o r the jury's v e r d i c t , the jury i s f r e e t o d i s c a r d o r d i s b e l i e v e whatever f a c t s a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i t s c o n c l u s i o n , And t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s f u n c t i o n i s exhausted when t h a t e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s becomes a p p a r e n t , i t b e i n g immaterial t h a t t h e c o u r t might draw a c o n t r a r y i n f e r e n c e o r f e e l t h a t a n o t h e r conclusion i s more r e a s o n a b l e . ' " * See a l s o : St.Rep. Kirby v. K e l l y , Mon t . 504 P. 2d 683, 29 1090; Davis v. Davis, 159 Mont. 355, 497 P.2d 315, 29 St,Rep, 65; Wallace v . Wallace, 85 Mont. 492, 279 P. 374; 66 This p r i n c i p l e of law c i r c u m s c r i b i n g our r i g h t t o review t h e evidence i s based on t h e sound premise t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t and j u r y have an obvious advantage over t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t i n making d e t e r m i n a t i o n s of f a c t . They h e a r and observe t h e a t t i t u d e and demeanor of t h e w i t n e s s e s f i r s t h a n d , whereas t h i s Court h a s o n l y th.e w r i t t e n r e c o r d , An exami.nation of t h a t w r i t t e n r e c o r d r e v e a l s defendant h a s r e l i e d e x c l u s i v e l y on t h e f a c t s (1) t h e person informing Mrs. Hannifin t h a t h e r job was l o s t was s u b o r d i n a t e t o h e r i n r a n k , and (2) M r s . Hannifin chose t o pursue h e r remedy i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r a t h e r than through i n t e r n a l union v e r i f i c a t i o n and a p p e a l channels. Defendant made l i t t l e o r no a t t e m p t t o e s t a b l i s h s e v e r a l o t h e r a s p e c t s of i t s c a s e a s f a c t , i n c l u d i n g (1) t h a t Patsy Thomas had spoken mistakenly, imdependently o r i n excess of h e r c o n f e r r e d a u t h o r i t y , (2) t h a t M r s . Hannifin had o r should have had reason t o d i s b e l i e v e o r doubt t h e word of Patsy Thomas, ( 3 ) t h a t M r s . Hannifin d i d n o t , i n f a c t , b e l i e v e t h a t P a t s y Thomas was r e l a y i n g t r u e information from t h o s e i n a u t h o r i t y t o e f f e c t h e r dismj-ssal, (4) t h a t Mrs, Hannifin d i d v o l u n t a r i l y and w i t h f u l l knowledge of h e r a c t i o n s , r e s i g n h e r employment, (5) t h a t Mrs. Hannifin e x p r e s s l y o r i m p l i e d l y waived t h e prot e c t i o n s she was accorded under h e r employment c o n t r a c t and t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n s of B u t t e Local No. 4 and t h e R e t a i l C l e r k s I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n , o r (6) t h a t defendant o r anyone connected w i t h i t , made any attempt t o c o r r e c t t h e claimed they misapprehension 1- e a t e d n t h e mind of Mrs. Hannifin t h a t h e r ~ i - job had been terminated. The j u r y s u p p l i e d t h e answers t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t based on t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l , It i s n o t t h e p r e r o g a t i v e of t h i s Court t o supply i t s own answers. There was some testimony i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Mrs. ~ a n n i f i n ' s job performance was poor and c r e a t e d adequate grounds f o r dismissal. Perhaps t h e n , i t could b e r a t i o n a l i z e d t h a t i n t h i s c a s e t h e end r e s u l t w a s j u s t and e q u i t a b l e , Even i f t h i s were t r u e , I do n o t b e l i e v e t h e end j u s t i f i e s t h e means. And indeed, t h e means employed t o circumvent Mrs. ~ a n n i f i n ' s r i g h t s under h e r employment c o n t r a c t and t h e union c o n s t i t u t i o n s a r e within t h e purview of c o n s t r u c t i v e f r a u d , i f i n t e n t i o n a l , o r a c t i o n a b l e negligence, i f inadvertent, The f i n d i n g of f a c t , a s made by t h e j u r y , was based on subs t a n t i a l , c r e d i b l e and i n some a s p e c t s u n c o n t r a d i c t e d evidence. There appears no i n d i c a t i o n of p a s s i o n o r p r e j u d i c e on t h e p a r t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r j u r y , The v e r d i c t and judgment d i d no mare than compensate Mrs. Hannifin f o r t h e wages t h e Local Union was c o n t r a c t u a l l y o b l i g a t e d t o pay h e r over t h e remainder of h e r e l e c t e d term of employment. I would a f f i r m t h e judgment

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.