Atkinson v. Thrift Super Markets, Inc.

Washington Supreme Court

Atkinson v. Thrift Super Markets, Inc.

354 P.2d 709, 56 Wash. 2d 593, 1960 Wash. LEXIS 382, 46 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2938

CourtWashington Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 11, 1960

Docket35208

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 354 P.2d 709 (Atkinson v. Thrift Super Markets, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atkinson v. Thrift Super Markets, Inc., 354 P.2d 709, 56 Wash. 2d 593, 1960 Wash. LEXIS 382, 46 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2938 (Wash. 1960).

Pincite

Opinions

Mallery, J.

— This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order of dismissal upon the sustaining of a demurrer to his [594]*594complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

During the period from July, 1952, to June, 1955, the appellant, a member of the Retail Clerks International Union, Local No. 381, worked as a grocery clerk in respondent’s store. The wages for the type of work performed by appellant were governed by a collective bargaining agreement between the union and the respondent. In his complaint, the appellant alleged that the respondent had paid him a wage which was less than that provided by the agreement. He asked a judgment for back pay in an amount which is the difference between the wage actually paid him and the union scale.

Two other similarly situated employees assigned their claims to the appellant and his complaint seeks recovery for these claims as well as his own.

The trial court’s dismissal of the complaint was put upon the ground that the appellant admitted, in his complaint, that he had not complied with § VIII (3) of the agreement, which provides:

“No grievance or claim of violation of this Agreement shall be recognized unless presented in writing within ninety (90) days from the date of the occurrence causing the complaint or grievance except in cases where report of a grievance has been suppressed through coercion by the Employer.”

A collective bargaining agreement is governed by the established principles of contract law. 95 A.L.R. 15. A plaintiff, in order to maintain an action on a contract, must have complied with the conditions precedent contained therein. That is to say, a breach by a plaintiff of a material condition precedent relieves a defendant of liability under a contract. 2 Restatement, Contracts, 746, § 395; 3 Williston, Contracts, 1936, § 674; 6 Corbin, Contracts, 2, § 1252.

In his complaint, the appellant makes no claim of coercion nor does he assert any excuse for noncompliance with the agreement. A requirement that grievances be submitted in writing within ninety days is not against public [595]*595policy. We have so held in Dunlap v. West Constr. Co., 23 Wn. (2d) 827, 162 P. (2d) 448.

Appellant’s complaint, therefore, does not state a cause of action.

The judgment is affirmed.

Weaver, C. J., Ott, and Hunter, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mallery, J.

— This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order of dismissal upon the sustaining of a demurrer to his [594]*594complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

During the period from July, 1952, to June, 1955, the appellant, a member of the Retail Clerks International Union, Local No. 381, worked as a grocery clerk in respondent’s store. The wages for the type of work performed by appellant were governed by a collective bargaining agreement between the union and the respondent. In his complaint, the appellant alleged that the respondent had paid him a wage which was less than that provided by the agreement. He asked a judgment for back pay in an amount which is the difference between the wage actually paid him and the union scale.

Two other similarly situated employees assigned their claims to the appellant and his complaint seeks recovery for these claims as well as his own.

The trial court’s dismissal of the complaint was put upon the ground that the appellant admitted, in his complaint, that he had not complied with § VIII (3) of the agreement, which provides:

“No grievance or claim of violation of this Agreement shall be recognized unless presented in writing within ninety (90) days from the date of the occurrence causing the complaint or grievance except in cases where report of a grievance has been suppressed through coercion by the Employer.”

A collective bargaining agreement is governed by the established principles of contract law. 95 A.L.R. 15. A plaintiff, in order to maintain an action on a contract, must have complied with the conditions precedent contained therein. That is to say, a breach by a plaintiff of a material condition precedent relieves a defendant of liability under a contract. 2 Restatement, Contracts, 746, § 395; 3 Williston, Contracts, 1936, § 674; 6 Corbin, Contracts, 2, § 1252.

In his complaint, the appellant makes no claim of coercion nor does he assert any excuse for noncompliance with the agreement. A requirement that grievances be submitted in writing within ninety days is not against public [595]*595policy. We have so held in Dunlap v. West Constr. Co., 23 Wn. (2d) 827, 162 P. (2d) 448.

Appellant’s complaint, therefore, does not state a cause of action.

The judgment is affirmed.

Weaver, C. J., Ott, and Hunter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 P.2d 709, 56 Wash. 2d 593, 1960 Wash. LEXIS 382, 46 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkinson-v-thrift-super-markets-inc-wash-1960.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack