Liggett v. Koivunen

34 N.W.2d 345, 227 Minn. 114, 1948 Minn. LEXIS 647, 23 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2035
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedOctober 29, 1948
DocketNo. 34,643.
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 34 N.W.2d 345 (Liggett v. Koivunen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Liggett v. Koivunen, 34 N.W.2d 345, 227 Minn. 114, 1948 Minn. LEXIS 647, 23 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2035 (Mich. 1948).

Opinion

Matson, Justice.

Appeal from an order denying defendants’ motion for amended findings or a new trial in an action for injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs are members of a voluntary unincorporated labor association — affiliated with the American Federation of Labor — known as Local No. 49 International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers Union of International Falls, Minnesota, hereinafter designated as Local 49. The defendants are sued as officers of Local 49 and as officers and members of a rival labor association — affiliated with the CIO — known as Local No. 12-33 International Woodworkers of America and hereinafter designated as Local 12-33. Defendants are also sued as members and representatives of a purported International Falls Benefit Association. Plaintiffs brought this action to enjoin defendants from transferring or attempting to trans *116 fer certain property and moneys of Local 49, inclusive in particular of about $20,000 belonging to a benefit fund maintained by Local 49 under the legend of the Sick Relief Association and Burial Benefit Association of Local 49.

Local 49 has continuously existed since 1916 pursuant to a charter issued in that year by its parent organization, the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, herein called the International. By the terms of its charter, Local 49 has at all times been governed by the constitution and bylaws of the International, which specifically provide that no subordinate local shall be dissolved while seven members are willing to continue the same. Each local may make bylaws, not in conflict with those of the International, to govern the actions of its own members.

From 1916 to June 19, 1946, Local 49 was the collective bargaining representative of the “Pulp and Sulphite Workers” unit of the Minnesota & Ontario Paper Company at International Falls. Prior to June 19, 1946, certain members of Local 49 became dissatisfied and joined Local 12-33. Prior to the same date, in an election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board, the members of Local 49, exclusive of plant guards and clockmen, by a large majority voted to designate the International Woodworkers of America, Local 12-33, as their bargaining agent. As a result, sai'd board on June 19, 1946, certified Local 12-33 as bargaining representative of such employes, with the exception of the plant guards and clockmen, for whom Local 49 remained the bargaining representative. Since sometime after June 24,1946, members of Local 49 in excess of seven in number, or of a total of about 45, have remained as paid-up members in good standing and desire to continue the existence of Local 49. About 15 of this number are plant guards and clockmen.

The controversy herein relates to the disposition of about $20,000 in a benefit fund established and maintained by Local 49. In 1918, at a regular meeting of Local 49, it was voted to establish a sick relief fund known as Local 49 Sick Relief Association. A burial benefit fund was added thereto in 1933. It is not clear from the evidence whether any regular bylaws for the regulation of the benefit associa *117 tion existed prior to 1935, but in that year, at a regular meeting of Local 19, a set of written bylaws entitled “By Laws for Sick Belief Association and Burial Benefit Association of I. B. of Pulp Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers Union Local 19” was adopted. The evidence indicates that these bylaws merely formalized in writing what had been substantially the established practice. Although the term “association” is used in the title, it is clear that no association or organization separate and independent of Local 19 was ever intended or established. As clearly revealed by the provisions of these bylaws and by the procedure followed in allowing claims for sick relief and funeral benefits, the so-called benefit association was in fact merely a special fund or department classification of Local 19. As succinctly stated by the trial court:

* * no separate association for the administration of said sick relief and funeral benefit funds of said Local No. 19 was ever set up or maintained, and that no officers were ever provided for or elected for any separate association for the administration of such funds, and no meetings of any such separate association were ever provided for or held for the handling of the business in connection with such funds; but all moneys for the said sick relief and funeral benefit funds were collected by the officers of said Local No. 19 and as a regular part of the dues of said Local No. 19, that claims on said funds by members of said Local No. 19 who were entitled thereto were presented to the said Local No. 19 at its regular meetings and allowed by such local at such meetings or referred to its sick committee consisting of regular officers of said Local No. 19; that the moneys in said sick relief funeral benefit funds were kept in the name of the sick relief or funeral benefit funds of the International Falls Local No. 19, Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, and orders for payment of such claims were designated and drawn on such fund and not by any separate association, and were signed by the president and secretary of said Local No. 19; that the By-Laws governing the control of such funds were adopted and acted upon by said Local No. 19 at its regular meeting and not at any meeting of any separate association, * * *.”

*118 The bylaws explicitly state that the purpose for which the benefit fund was established was to provide certain sick relief and funeral benefits for members of Local 49 whose dues are either paid up or are not in arrears for more them 60 days. In other words, no benefits were to be provided for nonmembers of Local 49 or for members thereof not in good standing.

On June 24,1946 (five days after Local 12-33 had been certified as the new bargaining representative for all employes except the plant guards and clockmen), at a regularly called meeting of Local 49, a motion was made to amend the bylaws governing the Sick Relief Association and Burial Benefit Association. This motion was passed by a majority vote of the members of Local 49 present at the meeting. A substantial minority of members, constituting considerably more than seven in number, were present and objected to this motion on the grounds that it was unlawful, illegal, and void. The purported amendment provided in part that (1) the name be changed to The International Falls Benefit Association; (2) that those entitled to membership in the association should include persons who had never been members in Local 49, provided they were employed in certain listed units of the Minnesota & Ontario Paper Company and were members in good standing of a union; (3) that all moneys, securities, and properties of the Sick Relief Association and Burial Benefit Association be transferred to the name of The International Falls Benefit Association; (4) that dues of 50 cents per month be paid directly to the association by each member thereof; and (5) that the association be managed by a board of trustees elected directly by members of the association.

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

Related

Edwards v. Burke
2004 MT 350 (Montana Supreme Court, 2004)
Alailima-Utu v. Tufele
22 Am. Samoa 2d 34 (High Court of American Samoa, 1992)
National Grange of the Order of Patrons v. O'Sullivan Grange No. 1136
667 P.2d 1105 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1983)
Owyhee Grazing Ass'n v. Field
637 F.2d 694 (Ninth Circuit, 1981)
Reigner v. Cisco
8 Pa. D. & C.3d 188 (Sullivan County Court of Common Pleas, 1978)
Cardwell v. Hackett
579 S.W.2d 186 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1978)
Raulston v. Everett
561 S.W.2d 635 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Libby v. Perry
311 A.2d 527 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1973)
Bouse v. Burns
464 P.2d 318 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1970)
Cady v. Bush
166 N.W.2d 358 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1969)
Building Serv. Emp. Iu v. University of Minn. Emp. U.
135 N.W.2d 697 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1965)
DeBruyn v. Golden Age Club of Cheyenne
399 P.2d 390 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1965)
Unión de Empleados de la Industria del Teléfono, Local 962 v. Medina
90 P.R. 443 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1964)
Farrar v. Messmer
368 S.W.2d 933 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1963)
House v. Schwartz
18 Misc. 2d 21 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 N.W.2d 345, 227 Minn. 114, 1948 Minn. LEXIS 647, 23 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liggett-v-koivunen-minn-1948.