The appellant (plaintiff below) brought this action in Fulton Superior Court against Bowman Transportatiоn, Inc. (Bowman) and W. A. Robinson& Associates (Robinson). The complaint alleged that appellant was an employee of Bowman and a member of a labor union; that under the bargaining agreemеnt between the union and the employer "employees shall be discharged, suspended or disciplined, only for reasonable cause”; that the plaintiff was suspended by Bowman without reasonablе cause and in violation of the bargaining agreement; that said suspension is the result of a conspiracy between defendants to force the appellant to submit to an unwarranted and unlawful invаsion of his constitutional right of privacy; that this conspiracy constituted a joint wilful, malicious and tortiоus conduct on the part of the defendants. The complaint then alleged that the plaintiff had been damaged, as a result of the conspiracy between the defendants to invade his privacy, in the amount of $500,000. The complaint was filed on November 15,1974. On December 3,1974, the case was removеd to the United States District Court — Northern District of Georgia. On December 10, 1974, Robinson filed its answer in the United Statеs District Court.
While the case was pending in the federal court the appellees took the appellant’s deposition and filed motions for summary judgment. However, before these motions werе disposed of the case was remanded to the Fulton Superior Court. The order remanding the cаse was on August 28, 1975. The case was refiled in the superior court on September 5, 1975.
Robinson then filed what was styled a "motion to open default” on October 10, 1975, along with an answer and a brief. Bowman moved fоr summary judgment. The trial judge granted Bowman’s motion for summary judgment and granted Robinson’s motion to open default allowing the answer to be filed.
We are therefore confronted with the correctness of the rulings as to Robinson and as to Bowman. Held:
*249 1. It appears from the record that the appellant processed his grievance for his suspension through the proper channels resulting in an arbitration award contrary to his contentions. The result of this award was that the employer had suspended him for reasonable cause.
It is well established that the arbitrator’s ruling is binding. See Humphrey v. Moore,
A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful end or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means.
Foster v. Sikes,
Where there is a contract terminable at will the party with nо authority to discharge the employee may be found liable where he maliciously and unlawfully pеrsuaded the employer to breach the contract with the employee. However, this gives no cause against the employer who had an absolute right to discharge the employee.
Campbell v. Carroll,
In this сase the matter of the employer Bowman unreasonably discharging or suspending the appеllant has already been determined by arbitration. Hence, it is clear that there can be no cause of action based on a *250 conspiracy by Bowman to discharge the employeе, appellant in this case.
Proof offered here showеd the appellant’s right to privacy in no way was violated since he refused to answer certаin questions proposed to him and no attempt was made to obtain an answer to such questions upon such refusal. Therefore it is clear that no actionable wrong has been committed agаinst the plaintiff and there is no basis or proof to sustain a civil action for damages caused by acts pursuant to a conspiracy.
2. Appellant urges the trial judge erred in granting Robinson’s motion to оpen default. It is argued that the time had already expired in which the defendant should do so. We find no mеrit in such contentions.
First of all, a serious question arises as to whether Robinson was in default at all. See,
e.g., Allen v. Hatchett,
Nevertheless, assuming there was h default, an ample basis existed for the trial judge’s exercise of his discretion under CPA § 55 (Code Ann. § 81A-155; Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 659; 1967, pp. 226, 238) to "determine that a proper case has been made for the default to be opened.”
Axelroad v. Preston,
The trial judge did not err in granting Robinson’s motion to open default.
Judgments affirmed.