121 N.W.2d 325 | Minn. | 1963
Appeal from a judgment of the municipal court of St. Paul dismissing an action to collect money allegedly due under a collective bargaining agreement between defendant and a union representing defendant’s employees.
The determinative question is whether plaintiff’s suit in municipal court is barred by the dismissal in conciliation court.
Although the form of the motion in each court was to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the parties are in agreement that the question raised by the motion and determined by the conciliation court was whether or not the claim for money due was a dispute which was required to be initially resolved by arbitration.
Plaintiffs argument that the dismissal in conciliation court was not a dismissal on the merits of the lawsuit overlooks the fact that the action in municipal court would require that court to relitigate the very question which was litigated in conciliation court. The fact that this could have been done upon appeal from the conciliation court’s decision in no way authorizes it to be done where a new action is instituted. It is a well-established rule that a party may not litigate the same question twice with the same adversary.
In view of our decision that plaintiff is barred from reinstituting the question presented to conciliation court in municipal court, there is no necessity for deciding the second issue raised by the appeal. We have, however, considered the arguments of the parties and are of the view that the issue would be controlled by an application of the reasoning in our recent decision of Rowan v. K. W. McKee, Inc. 262 Minn. 366, 114 N. W. (2d) 692. It was there held that a party involved directly or indirectly in the collective bargaining situation who seeks to enforce a claim arising out of the collective bargaining contract is subject to the requirement in the contract that administrative remedies made a part thereof be exhausted prior to litigation.
Affirmed.
Defendant could have made application to compel arbitration and to stay this action under Minn. St. 572.09 of the Uniform Arbitration Act.
Minn. St. 491.06; Rule 7, Rules of Practice, St. Paul Municipal Court (27 A M. S. A. p. 430).
Seastrand v. D. A. Foley & Co. 144 Minn. 239, 175 N. W. 117; Restatement, Judgments, § 45, comments c and d, and § 49, comments a and b.