DUFFY v BUTTE TEACHERS UNION

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13038 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA CARMIE R. DUFFY and D. COSETTE DUFFY, P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , ' BUTTE TFACHERS UNION, NUMBER 332, AFL-CIO ; M I K E McCARTHY; EDWARD HEARD; M N A A PHYSICIANS' OTN SERVICE, a c o r p o r a t i o n ; GIL HOXMER; SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER ONE O SILVER BOW COUNTY, MONTANA, a p o l i t i c a l F s u b d i v i s i o n o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana and body p u b l i c F and c o r p o r a t e ; BOARD OF TRUSTEES O SCHOOL DISTRICT N M E ONE OF SILVER BOW COUNTY, MONTANA; U BR Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t s : Poore, McKenzie, Roth, Robischon and Robinson, A l l e n R. McKenzie argued, B u t t e , Montana F o r Respondents: Henningsen, P u r c e l l & Genzberger, B u t t e , Montana R o b e r t McCarthy a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana Hughes, Bennett & Cain, Helena, Montana Alan F. Cafn a r g u e d , Helena, Montana John G. Winston, County A t t o r n e y , B u t t e , Montana John J. P a r k e r , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana September 2 2 , 1975 Submitted: Decided: Filed : GrT31 I<jj!j 6CF 3 1 1975 Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment t h a t g r a n t e d a l l d e f e n d a n t s ' motions t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon which r e l i e f could b e g r a n t e d , without l e a v e t o r e f i l e . P l a i n t i f f s f i l e d t h e i r o r i g i n a l complaint i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lewis and Clark County, September 23, 1974, a g a i n s t a l l defendants except School D i s t r i c t Number One of S i l v e r Bow County, Montana and i t s Board of T r u s t e e s . The complaint charges defendants w i t h conspiracy t o v i o l a t e c e r t a i n r i g h t s of p l a i n t i f f s . Con- s o l i d a t e d motions a s k i n g f o r (a) a change of venue, (b) d i s m i s s a l f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon which r e l i e f can b e g r a n t e d , and ( c ) a more d e f i n i t e statement a s t o t h e c o n s p i r a c y , t o g e t h e r w i t h accompanying b r i e f s , were f i l e d by defendants. The venue was changed t o t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , S i l v e r Bow County, whereupon p l a i n t i f f s d i s q u a l i f i e d b o t h d i s t r i c t judges of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t . Judge W. W. L e s s l e y , T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n . An amended complaint was f i l e d by p l a i n t i f f s which added defendants School D i s t r i c t Number One o f S i l v e r Bow County and t h e Board of T r u s t e e s of School D i s t r i c t Number One, S i l v e r Bow County. Defendants, i n t u r n , amended t h e i r b r i e f s i n s u p p o r t of t h e motion t o dismiss. A l l motions were heard by t h e c o u r t . O A p r i l 22, 1975, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r n and judgment which g r a n t e d t h e motions t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon which r e l i e f can be g r a n t e d , t o a l l defendants. T h i s a p p e a l i s from that judgment. The amended complaint pleads t h e c o r p o r a t e c a p a c i t y of Montana p h y s i c i a n s ' S e r v i c e (MPS); t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e defendant B u t t e ~ e a c h e r s 'Union Number 332, AFL-CIO (Union), a s r e p r e s e n t i n g t e a c h e r s employed by School D i s t r i c t Number One of S i l v e r Bow County (School D i s t r i c t ) ; and t h e p o s i t i o n o f Edward Heard and Mike McCarthy a s o f f i c e r s of s a i d Union. Defendant G i l Hoxmer i s an agent of Montana P h y s i c i a n s ' S e r v i c e . Plaintiffs are not Pro f o r m a l l e g a t i o n s a r e i n c l u d e d w i t h members of t h e Union. r e s p e c t t o School D i s t r i c t Number One of S i l v e r Bow County and i t s Board of T r u s t e e s . I t a l l e g e s t h a t f o r a number of y e a r s c o n t r a c t s e x i s t e d between t h e Union and M S providing group medical, s u r g i c a l and P h o s p i t a l b e n e f i t s and t h a t pursuant t o t h e s e c o n t r a c t s t h e School D i s t r i c t made c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o M S a t i t s Helena, Montana o f f i c e s P on b e h a l f of a l l t e a c h e r s . That c o n t r i b u t i o n s were made on b e h a l f of p l a i n t i f f s , who a r e n o t members o f s a i d Union, t o M S and t h a t P b e n e f i t s were provided t o p l a i n t i f f s i n accordance w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t between t h e Union and M S a t r a t e s i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e e s t a b l i s h e d P f o r a l l teachers. F u r t h e r t h a t a f t e r September 1972, t h e Union d i r e c t e d M S t o maintain s e p a r a t e charge h i s t o r i e s f o r nonunion t e a c h e r s P and union t e a c h e r s . That p r i o r t o September 1973, t h e nonunion t e a c h e r s "were advised" t h a t they would b e s e p a r a t e d and segregated from t h e union t e a c h e r s f o r h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e purposes and t h a t t h e y would have t o s e c u r e t h e i r own insurance. P l a i n t i f f s chose t o j o i n a group composed of school d i s t r i c t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and o t h e r nonunion t e a c h e r s . The h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e r a t e s f o r t h e union group was $39.99 per month and f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r nonunion coverage. group was $47.65, f o r i d e n t i c a l The School D i s t r i c t c o n t r i b u t e d $35 per month t o b o t h union and nonunion t e a c h e r s . The n e t d i f f e r e n c e payable by t h e t e a c h e r s was $12.65 f o r nonunion t e a c h e r s and $4.99 f o r union teachers. I n t h e amended complaint a p r o v i s i o n of t h e II Master Agreement" e n t e r e d i n t o between t h e School D i s t r i c t and t h e Union f o r t h e p e r i o d e f f e c t i v e September 1, 1973, i s s e t f o r t h i n haec verba. T h i s s e c t i o n o f t h e agreement provides t h a t on o r b e f o r e A p r i l 1, t h e Union s h a l l a r r a n g e f o r a medical, s u r g i c a l and h o s p i t a l plan f o r t h e b e n e f i t of i t s membership and t h e School D i s t r i c t w i l l make c o n t r i b u t i o n of $35 per month per member t e a c h e r toward t h e c o s t of s a i d plan and a r m g e f o r p a y r o l l deductions. P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e t h a t p r i o r t o J u l y 1973 defendants Union, MPS and Hoxmer e n t e r e d i n t o a conspiracy t o f o r c e p l a i n t i f f s t o become members of t h e Union by i n s i s t i n g on a c o n t r a c t between t h e Union and - providing f o r d i s c r i m i n a t o r y and e x c e s s i v e r a t e s MS P t o b e charaged p l a i n t i f f s and o t h e r nonunion t e a c h e r s . P The agreement between t h e Union and M S i s a l l e g e d t o be unlawful by reason of i t s v i o l a t i o n of "Rule 36" of t h e Master Agreement f o r f a i l u r e by t h e Union t o w r i t e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s and r e c e i v e s e a l e d b i d s f o r t h e medical and s u r g i c a l coverage f o r t h e Union members; i n s t e a d t h e Union n e g o t i a t e d a c o n t r a c t of coverage f o r i t s members t h a t d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f s and o t h e r s similarly, situated. The amended complaint f u r t h e r a l l e g e s t h i s i s i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n s 11-1024, 75-6118, 40-3509, R.C.M. 75-6120, 64-303 and 1947; t h e due process c l a u s e of t h e F i r s t and Fourteenth Amendments t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n ; and, A r t i c l e IT, Section 7 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . It f u r t h e r a l l e g e s t h a t p l a i n t i f f s a r e , i n a d d i t i o n t o n o t being members of t h e Union, taxpayers of S i l v e r Bow County; t h a t t h e agreement between t h e School D i s t r i c t and t h e Union, which c a l l s f o r a c o n t r i b u t i o n on b e h a l f of a l l t e a c h e r s i n t h e amount of $35 p e r month, i s i l l e g a l i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 11-1024, and a s k s t h a t t h e s e c o n t r i b u t i o n s b e r e p a i d t o S i l v e r Bow County (not a p a r t y t o t h i s a c t i o n ) by t h e Union and MPS t o t h e e x t e n t t h e y exceed $120 per year per t e a c h e r . I n t h e p r a y e r , p l a i n t i f f s a s k t h a t only MPS be r e q u i r e d t o repay such amounts. The law on conspiracy i s r e l a t i v e l y w e l l s e t t l e d i n Montana. I n 1 5 A C.J.S., Conspiracy, $ 5 l ( 1 ) and 1 ( 2 ) , i t i s s a i d : 9 l ( 1 ) . 11A c i v i l conspiracy i s a combination of two o r more persons by concerted a c t i o n t o accomplish an unlawful purpose, o r t o accomplish some purpose not i n i t s e l f unlawful by unlawful means. I I 5 l ( 2 ) . "The e s s e n t i a l elements r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h a c i v i l conspiracy a r e t h e same a s t h o s e r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h a c r i m i n a l conspiracy. I n g e n e r a l , t o cons t i t u t e a c i v i l conspiracy t h e r e must be: (1) Two o r more persons, and f o r t h i s purpose a c o r p o r a t i o n i s a person; (2) an o b j e c t t o be accomplished; ( 3 ) a meeting of minds on t h e o b j e c t o r c o u r s e of a c t i o n ; (4) one o r more unlawful o v e r t a c t s ; and (5) damages a s t h e proximate r e s u l t thereof. +r *I1 In 15A C.J.S., Conspiracy, 2, i t i s f u r t h e r noted t h a t i f t h e o b j e c t o f an a l l e g e d "conspiracy" i s l a w f u l , and t h e means used t o a t t a i n t h a t o b j e c t a r e l a w f u l , t h e r e can b e no c i v i l a c t i o n The foregoing i s t r u e even though damage may f o r conspiracy. r e s u l t t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s and even though defendants may have a c t e d with a malicious motive. I f such were n o t t h e r u l e , obviously many p u r e l y b u s i n e s s d e a l i n g s would g i v e r i s e t o an a c t i o n i n t o r t on b e h a l f of one who may have been a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d . P r o s s e r , Law of T o r t s , 4 t h E d . , p. 293, n o t e s t h a t it i s n o t r e a l l y t h e c o n s p i r a c y which g i v e s r i s e t o a r i g h t o f a c t i o n , but t h e t o r t s which may b e committed i n f u r t h e r a n c e t h e r e o f . Each of t h e s e a c t i o n s would support a claim f o r r e l i e f i t s e l f - - - t h e only f u n c t i o n served by t h e a c t i o n of conspiracy b e i n g t o connect nonacting b u t p a r t i c i p a t i n g members who would n o t ~ t h e r w ~ s e be l i a b l e t o t h e one damaged. < c;' . The g i s t of t h e a c t i o n i s n o t t h e conspiracy charged, but t h e t o r t working damage t o t h e p l a i n t i f f . 1 I t i s only where means a r e employed, o r purposes a r e accomplished, which a r e themselves t o r t i o u s , t h a t t h e c o n s p i r a t o r s who have n o t a c t e d b u t have promoted t h e a c t w i l l be held l i a b l e . " 11 1 f ; 'ro s u s t a i n t h e i r a c t i o n h e r e , t h e n , p l a i n t i f f s must a l l e g e a t o r t committed by one of t h e a l l e g e d c o n s p i r a t o r s . The d e c i s i o n s of t h i s Court a r e i n accord w i t h t h e f o r e going. In Mustang Beverage Co., I n c . v. J o s . ~ c h l i t zrew wing Co., 162 Mont. 243, 251, 511 P.2d 1, t h e Court h e l d : ** *** "'* a combination of i n d i v i d u a l s f o r t h e i r j o i n t b e n e f i t does n o t c o n s t i t u t e a conspiracy t h e a c t i o n a b l e element of conspiracy i s t h e wrong done t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s , n o t t h e combination of persons c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e conspiracy. 1 I t I n an e a r l y c a s e t h i s Court noted t h a t freedom of c o n t r a c t i s t h e g e n e r a l r u l e and t h a t persons may g r a n t orwithEio,ld, t h e i r b u s i n e s s o r patronage from o t h e r s without i n c u r r i n g l i a b i l i t y I n Empire T h e a t r e Co. v. Cloke, 53 Mont. 183, 193, 163 P. therefor. 107, t h e Court h o l d i n g a combination t o do a lawful t h i n g by l a w f u l means i s no c o n s p i r a c y , s a i d : II Every person h a s t h e r i g h t , s i n g l y and i n combination w i t h o t h e r s , t o d e a l o r r e f u s e t o d e a l w i t h whom he chooses; t o r e a c h h i s d e c i s i o n i n t h a t , a s i n a l l o t h e r m a t t e r s , upon o r without good r e a s o n ; t o r e g a r d a s unf r i e n d l y a l l t h o s e who, w i t h o r without j u s t i f i c a t i o n , r e f u s e t o co-operate o r sympathize. II I n Empire T h e a t r e t h e Court approved t h e u s e of a b o y c o t t by members of a union a g a i n s t an employer. The g e n e r a l r u l e s e t o u t i n C.J.S. was approved i n B i e r i n g v. Ringling, 74 Mont. 176, 196, 240 P. 829, where t h e unl a w f u l a c t was found t o b e a plan t o defraud t h e p l a i n t i f f : 11 1 A conspiracy i s a combination of two o r more persons by some concerted a c t i o n t o accomplish a c r i m i n a l o r unlawful purpose o r t o accomplish a purpose, n o t i n i t s e l f c r i m i n a l o r unlawful, by c r i m i n a l o r unlawful means. I I t See a l s o : Mining S e c u r i t i e s Co. v. Wall, 99 Mont. 596, 45 P.2d 302; Lindsay & Co. v. Mont. F e d e r a t i o n of Labor, 37 Mont. 264, A motion t o d i s m i s s f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon which r e l i e f can b e g r a n t e d , Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , M.R.Civ.P., is e q u i v a l e n t t o a demurrer under former c i v i l procedure. Payne v. Mountain S t a t e s Tel. & Tel. Co., 142 Mont. 406, 409, 385 P.2d 100. A motion t o dismiss admits t o a l l f a c t s w e l l pleaded and i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e motion t h e m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e p l e a d i n g a t t a c k e d a r e taken a s t r u e . 323 P.2d 35. Deich v. Deich, 136 Mont. 566, 585, Where a complaint s t a t e s f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t t o con- s t i t u t e a cause of a c t i o n upon any t h e o r y , then t h e motion t o d i s m i s s must b e o v e r r u l e d . Nlgelo v . Koundup Coal Mining Co., 109 Nont. 293, 300, 96 P.2d 932. However, when a complaint a l l e g e s f a c t s and,assuming t h e f a c t s a r e t r u e , t h e r e s t i l l i s no c l a i m f o r r e l i e f s t a t e d under any t h e o r y , a motion t o d i s m i s s must b e g r a n t e d . Reducing t h e w e l l pleaded f a c t s t o t h e i r e s s e n c e and d i s c a r d i n g t h e l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s , t h e amended complaint s e e k s r e l i e f because a f t e r September 1973, p l a i n t i f f s a s nonunion t e a c h e r s were n o t permitted by t h e Union t o remain a s members of t h e group f o r which t h e Union c o n t r a c t e d f o r h e a l t h b e n e f i t s f o r i t s members from MPS. The School D i s t r i c t o r Board of T r u s t e e s a r e n o t included i n t h e a l l e g e d conspiracy. The i l l e g a l a c t i n s e r t e d by p l a i n t i f f s t o j u s t i f y a t o r t t o r e s u l t i n a conspiracy was f a i l u r e of t h e Union, under i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e Board of T r u s t e e s f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e Union members, t o draw s p e c i f i c a t i o n s and r e c e i v e b i d s f o r t h e i r h e a l t h coverage. A p r o c e d u r a l v a r i a t i o n from t h e i r own c o n t r a c t would n o t be unlawful even i f considered a breach by a p a r t y t o t h e c o n t r a c t who would have s t a n d i n g t o complain. P l a i n t i f f s admit they a r e n o t Union members and have no s t a n d i n g i n r e l a t i o n t o a c o n t r a c t e n t e r e d i n t o by t h e Union f o r t h e b e n e f i t of i t s members. t o do. The Union d i d p r e c i s e l y what i t had c o n t r a c t e d There i s no l e g a l reason why t h e Union was r e q u i r e d t o permit p l a i n t i f f s t o b e members of i t s group. A s t o t h e r o l e of M S i n t h e t r a n s a c t i o n a l l e g e d i n t h e P complaint, i t was merely a s e l l e r of s e r v i c e s . M S was n o t a p a r t y P t o t h e c o n t r a c t between t h e Union and t h e School D i s t r i c t of which p l a i n t i f f s complain, i t merely s o l d c e r t a i n b e n e f i t s t o t h e Union p e r i t s o r d e r and o t h e r b e n e f i t s t o o t h e r groups of School D i s t r i c t employees. Since freedom o f c o n t r a c t i s t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h e r e i s n o reason why M S cannot c o n t r a c t f o r t h e f u r n i s h i n g of s e r v i c e s P w i t h whatever groups i t chooses and charge whatever r a t e s i t f e e l s a r e j u s t i f i e d t o t h o s e groups w i t h which i t c o n t r a c t s . Great Northern U. Co. v. P u b l i c Ser. Com., 88 Mont. 180, 228, 229, 293 P. 294, r e a d s i n p a r t : ²° he g e n e r a l r i g h t t o make a c o n t r a c t i n r e l a t i o n t o h i s b u s i n e s s i s p a r t of t h e l i b e r t y of t h e i n d i v i d u a l p r o t e c t e d by t h e 1 4 t h Amendment of t h e f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n ' (Lechner v. N w York, 198 e U.S. 45, 49 L.Ed.937, 25 Sup.Ct.Rep.539), and t h a t ' t h e r i g h t of t h e owner t o f i x a p r i c e a t which h i s p r o p e r t y s h a l l b e s o l d o r used i s an i n h e r e n t a t t r i b u t e of t h e p r o p e r t y i t s e l f ' ( S t a t e F r e i g h t Tax Case, 15 Wall. (U.S.) 232, 278, 21 L.Ed. 146, 163) Jc Jr dc." See a l s o : Hein v. Fox, 126 Mont. 514, 254 P.2d 1076 (1953). A s noted h e r e t o f o r e , when p a r t i e s merely do what t h e y have a l e g a l r i g h t t o do, and when t h e means used a r e n o t unlawful-an a l l e g a t i o n i n a complaint t h a t t h e a c t i o n amounts t o a ~f ~ o n s p i r a c y "g i v e s no r i g h t of a c t i o n t o anyone, even i f t h e p a r t i e s agreed among themselves t o t a k e such a c t i o n . P l a i n t i f f s n e x t u s e t h e v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 11-1024, R.C.M. 1947, a s an unlawful a c t t o supply t h e t o r t f o r t h e con- spiracy, That s e c t i o n d i r e c t s departments, a g e n c i e s , e t c . of t h e s t a t e of Montana, and a l l c o u n t i e s , c i t i e s and towns t o c o n t r a c t f o r group h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e when r e q u e s t e d t o do s o by t w o - t h i r d s of t h e i r employees and t o make l i m i t e d ($10.00) cont r i b u t i o n s t o t h e c o s t of such coverage. A t t h e time School D i s t r i c t Number One c o n t r i b u t e d $35 t o t h e c o s t of a l l t e a c h e r s ' group h e a l t h i n s u r a n c e t h e r e were two o p i n i o n s of t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l of Montana h o l d i n g t h a t n e i t h e r t h e g r a n t of power t o e n t e r i n t o and c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e c o s t of group h o s p i t a l and medical i n s u r a n c e f o r t h e b e n e f i t of employees, n o r t h e l i m i t a t i o n on t h e amount o f such c o n t r i b u t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n s e c t i o n 11-1024, were a p p l i c a b l e t o s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s b u t t h e school d i s t r i c t s had t h e a u t h o r i t y and power t o expend s c h o o l funds f o r group i n s u r a n c e f o r t e a c h e r s and employees a s p a r t of t h e s a l a r i e s and compensation of t h e t e a c h e r s and employees. 27 Opinions o f t h e Attorney General No. 49; 30 Opinions of t h e A t t o r n e y General No. 6. While opinions o f t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l a r e n o t b i n d i n g upon t h i s Court, t h e Board of T r u s t e e s o f School D i s t r i c t Number 3ne and t h e Union were e n t i t l e d t o r e l y on and a c t i n accordance w i t h those opinions when they n e g o t i a t e d t h e 1973-1974 Master Agreement. O February 4 , 1974, months a f t e r t h e Master Agreement was n executed, t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l i s s u e d a n o t h e r opinion i n which he h e l d t h e p r e v i o u s l y mentioned two a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l opinions "were no longer a p p l i c a b l e " i n view of t h i s c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Teamsters v. Cascade Co. Sch.Dist. No. 1, 162 Mont. 277, 511 P.2d 339. 35 Opinions of t h e Attorney General No. 69. of t h a t a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l opinion was s h o r t l i v e d . The e f f e c t The Montana L e g i s l a t u r e amended s e c t i o n 11-1024, e f f e c t i v e March 1 2 , 1974, Montana Session Laws 1974, Chap. 188, by adding t h i s sentence: 11Provided, however, t h a t f o r employees o f elementary and high school d i s t r i c t s premium contributions a r e not subject t o the ten dollar ($10) l i m i t a t i o n of t h i s s e c t i o n . " W hold t h e $35 c o n t r i b u t i o n was n o t unlawful. e I f i t were unlawful i t would n o t h e l p t o e s t a b l i s h a conspiracy under t h e f a c t s h e r e a s t h e p a r t y t h a t would have v i o l a t e d t h e s e c t i o n by a g r e e i n g t o make, and d i d make t o a l l p a r t i e s , a payment n o t a u t h o r i z e d by law was t h e School D i s t r i c t . The v i o l a t i o n of o t h e r s t a t u t e s pleaded by p l a i n t i f f s have t o do w i t h t e a c h e r s ' r i g h t s , union p r a c t i c e s , u n f a i r p r a c t i c e s and t h e l i k e , which have l i t t l e relevancy t o t h e i s s u e h e r e , l a c k i n g a conspiracy. The argument i n b r i e f a s i t pertains t o discrimination i n regard t o c o n d i t i o n s o f employment by f a i l u r e t o belong t o t h e Union, c o n t r a r y t o Benson v. School D i s t . No. 1 of S i l v e r Bow County, 136 Mont. 77, 344 P.2d 177 (1959), i s without m e r i t h e r e . Benson was a g a i n s t t h e school d i s t r i c t f o r c o n t r a c t i n g w i t h t h e Union f o r a " s e c u r i t y c l a u s e " i n t h e master c o n t r a c t which r e q u i r e d t e a c h e r s t o join or lose salary benefits. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . i ' W Concur: e d ' Justices. /

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.