*1 413 Mo., [1]; 830 Martin, v. Jonas, Mo., 260 S.W.2d V.A.M.S.; 275 State v. State S.W.2d 336 [3]. S.W.2d 3 [7] . The judgment is affirmed. at prosecuting
Appellant states the testify. his failure to referred to torney STOGKARD, CC., BARRETT con- objected Sup.Ct.R. 26.08, 42 He V.A.M.S. cur. the think statement: “I following to the you could brought all that State has PER CURIAM. case, you can expected in this sort of opinion' BOHLING, foregoing The you view in this case as the evidence view C., adopted opinion as the the court. one On justice themselves. the scales of evidence, contra not State’s side is the All concur. side? is on defense what the dicted. And empty.” remarks following The It is fail refer an accused’s
been held not to side testify: “And on his what’s
ure to Spradlin, empty”, v. State
of the scale— 660, [5]; 940, 254 662 S.W.2d 363 Mo. QUINN, Case, Harold Gene Willard L. An evidence, what closed the “When the State derson, Hickman, Wilson, Harold Charles no evi offered They offer? the defense did Clyde Wood, Otto, Frederick Kenneth Mo., Hayzlett, 265 at all.” State dence Sparks, Goodwin, W. E. Dorsey D. 321, 323, Appellant’s 324 [3-6], S.W.2d Wood, representa for themselves and as contention is overruled. consisting tives of a class of all of the members of International, Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, argued sub case Warehousemen Helpers America, Local Union No. respondent appellant and mitted L., A. voluntary F. of unincorporat January Points 1957. this court ed labor organization, (Plaintiffs) Appellants, oc claim error appellant’s additional brief v argument on behalf curred. . do not State; matters referred but BUCHANAN, J.O. an Individual d/b/a are not appear in record before us Packing Company, Columbia (Defendant) appealing duty an for review. It Resp ondent. involving in criminal cases defendant No. 45014. proper to see to it that capital punishment Supreme filed transcript to and is transmitted Missouri, Court En Banc. Sup.Ct.R. appellate court. proper 1949, V.A. 28.08; 547.120 RSMo Section Jan. Mo., Gaddy, S.W.2d M.S.; 261 State Rehearing Modify Motion for or to Crader, Mo., 225 S.W.2d State v. 65 [13]; Opinion Denied Feb. Mo., Redd, S.W.2d 257 State [1]; 353 Mo., 277 Tompkins, [1, 2]; State v. 638 Kelsay, [16-18]; State v.
Mo., [4,5]. compli transcript
The shows necessary matters to be all
ance with “upon record be court
sidered 28.02, jury Sup.Ct.R. The 28.08.
fore it.” lar appellant guilty grand
found defendant further find the
ceny and: “We felony” of a formerly convicted
has been punishment. The verdict
and assessed Mo., Charles, State v.
is sufficient.
Harry Armbruster, Craig, Norman H. W. Louis, appellants. Wiley, Craig, St. Armbruster, Wilburn, Louis, Schmidt & St. of counsel. Orr, Sapp, Columbia,
Edwin C. Carl F. respondent. HYDE, Judge. preventive
Plaintiffs’ for both mandatory injunctive relief and actual $30,- al- place It defendant’s business.” punitive damages, in excess of plaintiffs’ bargaining leged, Ar- when one of the 000.00, of Sec. on based violation representatives upon Buchanan V.A.M.S., Mr. Constitution, called I, ticle refused to that he November in the (stated reason dismissed representative with has since a meet did not state dismiss) it motion bar- recognize refused to Local grant- upon relief could which claim gaining of his driver-sales- provision the constitutional ed because negotiate men and has with the refused appealed Plaintiffs self-executing. upon subject. alleged union It is then The judgment dismissal. recognize that his refusal Banc en to the Court case was transferred *4 rights “in with the union is violation of heard. it was first by No. 2 where Division guaranteed to said and to said petition and alleged in the The facts I, Local 833 under of Article Section 29 pages 2 and sought are set out relief Missouri, 1945, and the Constitution of 2No. adopted in Division opinion of the because alleged, therefore unlawful.” It is O. is Mr. as defendant follows: The J. Goodwin, Sparks designated and Wood in business engaged Buchanan who is bargaining Local 833 as their collective meat meat and selling and processing of representative Buchanan, that Mr. in name under the trade products at wholesale provision, violation of the constitutional Company. His busi- Packing of Columbia them, and discharged and that he “coerced from on and conducted ness is carried induced L. to cancel and with- R. Wrinkle engaged Columbia, Missouri, he is not and draw his of Local 833 to act authorization employed five commerce. He in interstate bargaining representative.” as his collective driver-salesmen, Sparks, Kenneth W. E. charged alleged It is that Buchanan’s Mr. Wood, Goodwin, Dorsey Earl Allen D. unlawful and acts and conduct were wilful Three of these driver- and R. Wrinkle. L. reckless, disregard of malicious and Wood, salesmen, Sparks, are Goodwin and plaintiffs’ rights. constitutional action, plaintiff in and it should parties this Aside from the prayer conventional are not Wrinkle and Allen be noted that general equitable relief, Case, re- plaintiffs, Quinn, parties. The other quests separate four and types distinct Hickman, Wilson, of re- Anderson, and Otto “preventative (1) lief: relief,” perpetually Wood, and trustees Clyde officers are the — enjoin and restrain (A) representatives of defendant class and the inducing, encouraging, or coercing of the No. 833 of Local Union members Teamsters, withdrawing into their authoriz- of Brotherhood International ation of Helpers Local 833 as their of collective Chauffeurs, and Warehousemen representative, 13, bargaining (B) interfering alleged that November It is America. employees’ right with freely organized, to choose driver-salesmen the five representative, the union as their as (C) Local No. 833 and and chose designated refusing recognize to representative collectively and their 833; bargain with Local (2) “mandatory negotiating with their represent them relief,” Buchanan, a collective the defendant to reinstate employer, Mr. —order Goodwin, Sparks wages, hours and Wood and agreement as to “to award employ- pay them such and they allowances as terms and conditions other would have on November earned had charged that not It is been ment. unlawfully manager discharged,” told (3) sales “Awarding Buchanan’s Mr. damages such actual as Local that he had heard 833 has Sparks and Goodwin sus- dues, fees, tained loss authorizing cards Local initiation signed loss they had prestige community, in the collective bargaining as their act loss them, bargaining power by he advised reason “that defend- signed conduct?,” such an unlawful acts author- ant’s who anyone * * * $5000; discharged, (4) be exceed “Awarding damages would ization Twenty-Five no union amount would be allowed in there Thousand that rights ($25,000.00) another usually Dollars such a wrong. punitive damages.” provides: “That I Art. pointed We in City out Spring right organize shall Clouse, field 356 Mo. rep collectively through and to 539, that the right of citizens to organize choosing.” of their own resentatives present their views collectively was provision Rights is a Bill of based on the rights petition, fundamental rights, people which assert peaceable assembly speech. and free We proclaim acknowledge their duties and stated, further 206 S.W.2d loc. cit. 543: principles upon government which their principal “the purpose of Section 29 was to preamble I.) (See to Art. is founded. declare that such rights of collective pri Rights of a Bill Provisions bargaining were established in this state. marily declar government, limitations on It means that right have the any govern ing rights that exist without to organize and special function for a away may grant, mental taken not be purpose: namely, purpose of col government has the government and that lective However, bargaining.” *5 Cooley’s duty protect. 1 Constitutional to employees is specifically stated to be 1092, 93, 358; Sec. Limitations Am.Jur. “through representatives their own 199, Law, p. 308; C.J.S., 16 Constitutional § choosing.” certainly means that show, any As- these authorities 976. employees complete have freedom of governmental of these action in violation organize choice to and their collec choose provisions rights declared is void so that representatives. bargaining tive Coercion self-executing Rights the are Bill any from is a source denial of this and Cooley’s to 1 Con this extent. See also a infringement it, direct which is a They do stitutional Limitations 166 note. wrong against employees; the surely and
not, however, usually provide
or
methods
right may
protected
this
by any proper
be
cer
remedies
enforcement and
for their
remedy.
legis
tainly
proper and within
it is
the
protect and
power
enact
to
lative
to
laws
This is the 'basis of our decisions in
provisions
Rights.
enforce the
of the Bill of
Country
McVey, Mo.Sup.,
Bellerive
Club v.
1094,
In
11
Sec. 309.
the absence
492;
Latal,
Am.Jur.
284 S.W.2d
Tallman Co. v.
4
legislation,
may
individuals
and
enforce
Mo.Sup., 28 S.W.2d 547.
In each of
protect
rights
infringement
these
from
employer
picketing
these cases
of an
was
by any appropriate
other individuals
com
enjoined because
picketing
the
for
remedy.
mon law or
Householder
code
v.
purpose, namely:
an unlawful
to force
488, 495,
City,
Kansas
83 Mo.
and cases
employer
employees
to coerce his
to
cited;
324,
see also Local Union No.
rep
picketing
select
union as their
of Electrical
International Brotherhood
bargaining.
for
resentatives
collective
Cooper
Upshur-Rural
Workers v.
Electric
Since such coercion would violate
484;
Corp., Tex.Civ.App., 261
ative
S.W.2d
employees
rights
make their own
of his
Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of
constitution,
choice,
in
declared
our
Railway
Clerks,
Steamship
&
281 U.S.
remedy of an
employer was entitled to the
548,
427,
14,
50 S.Ct.
418 personally them individual- belong ac- employer’s say that reasonable to ac- ly an only in could be determined improper because tion be declared should purpose. brought by tion for that them rights employees’ his violation cases, Craig wrongful discharge See exercising enjoined that he should Thompson, Mo.Sup., 244 37 S.W.2d important ques- this An direct coercion. Belt cited; Joseph cases union, ex rel. St. State or tion in whether not the this case is Shain, R. Co. 145 S.W.2d 346 Mo. col- their as selected these 131 in McGee v. St. quashing certiorari may main- organization, lective Joseph Ry., Mo.App. 133 S. course, Belt a purpose. tain a for Of suit nothing alleged association) W.2d 675. is There voluntary (which union is a em- defendant’s to show that sued entity can sue and be is not an any contract of involved had statutory authoriza- such in the absence term; ployment “the a definite Ass’n of tion. Ruggles v. International well this state irule established Iron Bridge, Ornamental Structural and 860; contract A elsewhere that in the absence Workers, 20, 52 Mo. employment or for a definite term Survey Labor Law —Labor of Missouri contrary employer statutory provision, an Shute, Mo. Unions as Suable Entities- — time, may employee any at However, discharge an this action Law Rev. reason, without reason action, cause or or for brought as a class and, case, main- resisting such action can be no I who were being three Christy wrongful discharge.” tained for licoercion, of the union as members Petrus, Mo.Sup.Banc, selected as Nevertheless, there and cases cited. agent, officers and trustees *6 by discharge can be composed of coercion of was threats class union. Thus the changes in com- other means such as the members of the collective pensation, and other work- persons hours of work organization (all the in it who and, in ing conditions; as we indicated organized purpose the of Mo.Sup. Madget, to State ex inf. Connett v. and it seems reasonable bargaining); Banc, 416, joint discharge of hold a common that all of them had or ployees, al- organ- such circumstances as maintaining right in their to under interest leged, “evidentiary op- collectively of the through ize their bargain and to pressive and coercive methods used.” voluntary particular in organization this a well instance as as others. Such proper main- the method for class action is pointed It should also be out of mem- taining a suit in behalf numerous 29, that Sec. Art. I not a is labor relations voluntary bers Sec- of a association. See act, duties, practices specifying rights, 1949, 507.070, 1(1),
tion V.A. subd. RSMo obligations employers of organ and labor M.S.; 1 Missouri Procedure Carr Civil izations, plaintiffs as seem to claim. See 68; 4-87, 169, 187-188, 175, 4 Sec. Am.Jur. cases under similar New York constitu 309; 48-49; 985, 31 Secs. Am.Jur. provision: County tional Erie Au Water Associations, 35, 86; p. C.J.S., 7 State § thority Kramer, 292, 208 Misc. 143 N.Y. Thatch, 190, 361 234 ex Allai v. Mo. rel. 379; Quill Eisenhower, Sup., S.2d 113 therefore, We, plaintiffs hold 889; N.Y.S.2d Trustees of Columbia right to maintain suit as such have the this University Herzog, App.Div. proper representatives of as this class affirmed 295 N.Y.S.2d N.Y. hereinabove purposes stated. 64 N.E.2d and Domanick v. Triboro Corp., Sup., Coach 18 N.Y.S.2d However, any cause of action provision of a is a declaration fundamental individtial person these herein It is right of individuals. self-executing ally may against have defendant is not in provisions the extent that all class volved this action. Thus a cause Rights self-executing, namely: Bill of for damages of action sustained Any governmental action in violation them , in- Employers between cion. Tail- right declared is void. As the Bellerive dividuals, that; the man right a got cases no actual- because it declares more than wrong, ly, they what surely legal got protection violation of a only which is was being reme every appropriate employees’ there is available coerced to violate their dy right this prevent against against redress or violation coercion. Coercion pro compel right. However, prevent the constitutional either or them provides required vision affirmative a organize for no organize or not to these violation of free concerning right right duties their fundamental wrong] violation. choice in only apply equally remedies can to their this matter case, basis, As Because a Quill stated in the 113 N.Y.S.2d it is its constitutional wrong loc. the con cit. 889: “It that that recognized is evident should be provision law stitutional em guaranteeing the land as one for which courts will right organize remedy. a afford collectively their through representatives of The judgment and remanded. is reversed own choosing upon all em does not cast ployers a obligation. correlative The All concur. shaped provision stitutional shield; the union seeks to use it as On Modify Motion for Rehearing or to' v * * * pro sword. constitutional The ision was protect intended to pre PER
against legislation or acts which would CURIAM. organization vent or interfere with ¡ say considering Plaintiffs representatives pur- and choice of j rights of discharged employees we pose collectively.” Thus' overlooked provision 507.040 of Section implementation any require right ¡ 1949, V.A.M.S., RSMo permitting joinder employer affirmative duties of an concern if assert to re- ing it is Legislature. a matter for the jointly respect lief or “in of or severally transaction, arising out same occur- Therefore, stated, on the facts rence, or series *7 transactions or occur- plaintiffs we hold are this class action any question rences if and of law fact or preventive entitled to relief enjoining de common to will all of arise in the ac- them coercing employees fendant from his into However, herein, tion.” withdrawing from the union and rescind damages there is no claim for made for ing their authorization to it to act as discharge by wrongful individual bargaining collective ployees plaintiffs say now in their mo- and also from interfering otherwise rehearing tion for “that these individual employees’ rights coercion with these employees employment had no contract of freely choose the union as their collective ap- for definite term.” Thus it does not representative. (The intended, words pear that such an action was or “inducing” “encouraging” plain action, or used in any, what if could be maintained prayer for tiffs’ relief are too broad and employees, necessary these so it is not prohibit persuasion lawful might that either they decide whether individual claims employer or properly the union could which would be determined this class However, use.) plaintiffs are action; not entitled ruling and we make no on it. Ac- mandatory sought to the relief or tually plaintiffs’ petition to re the relief asked in quire recognize defendant to bargain employees these concerning is not for dam- the union. The relief they rein-¡ with to which discharge ages wrongful for but for entitled is to have the rights they pay might those statement have j employees, voluntarily who part choose to S mandatory or earned in- purpose them for the ganize with sought. authority of col junctive relief As bargaining, protected lective coer- such relief & cite Texas N. R.O.
Co., Steam Railway & v. Brotherhood Missouri, Respondent, STATE of 427, 74 ship Clerks, 548, 50 S.Ct. 281 U.S. em v. case However, L.Ed. in that an discharged after involved were Stanley STODULSKI, Appellant. J. ¡been em against injunction had issued No. 45341. rein ployer required to be were against contempt proceeding stated Supreme Missouri, Court of cited, Local employer. cases In the Texas Division No. 1. Brotherhood Union No. International Feb. Upshur- Workers, A.F.L. Electrical Tex.Civ. Corp., Cooperative Rural Electric
App., Lunsford 484 and 261 S.W.2d 115, the City Bryan, Tex., statute, a Texas
decisions were based 5207a, which art. Ann.Civ.St. §
Vernon’s em
provided: person denied “No shall be .non- membership or
ployment on account of course,
membership Of in a union.” labor have a we we
if such a statute
different case. argument
-Plaintiffs’ .further employer right compel an cerning the fact overlooks the Constitution, VA..M.S., does I our
Art. purport require collective
not employers. The either or or right gives to it bargain purpose
ganize for the own representatives of their
ing through Clouse, City Springfield
choosing. 539, 543. or
Mo. Whether organized employers depends agreement reach an
can bargain or just in the both
upon willingness *8 for kind 'bargaining
case have the who persons other between
tract Perhaps modern make
right to contracts. more make desirable
industrial conditions relations but that labor for best
than that As to Legislature. matter
is a damages to recover
plaintiffs’ action, they cite no in this class
claimed properly briefed
authority this time. at question determination matter be decided
Therefore, this is a adduced; may we proof
upon such now. ruling iton
make no modify rehearing or to
The motion is overruled.
opinion
All concur.