Opinion
No. 3944.
Decided November 17, 1950.
A collective bargaining agreement between a barbers' union and a proprietor of a barber shop containing among other provisions that barber shops shall be open for business only during certain hours and shall display the union shop card is not invalid as between the parties for want of consideration.
BILL IN EQUITY, to enforce the provisions of an agreement made between the plaintiff and defendant on July 3, 1948. Trial by the Court who made certain findings, rulings, and entered a decree for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted to the findings, rulings and decree.
The contract provides, so far as material, that "in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained," it was "agreed that proprietors' barber shops shall be open" and "shall be closed" on certain hours and days in specified zones. Wages were agreed upon, all shop owners signing the agreement were to display the union card and it was stipulated that certain prices should be "maintained." It was also "agreed that the Union is the bargaining agent for all employees in effecting this Agreement."
No evidence was taken by the Court, but the attorneys agreed that the parties did sign the instrument and that it had never been revised or terminated. It was also stipulated that the defendant kept his shop open on certain days contrary to the terms of the agreement.
Other facts appear in the opinion. Transferred by Goodnow, C. J.
John J. Broderick, for the plaintiff.
Sheehan, Phinney Bass, for the defendant.
The main question here is whether the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is valid, or as the defendant claims is void for lack of consideration. We believe that the agreement is valid. Squarely in point appears the case of Henderson v. Ugalde, 61 Ariz. 221, where a barbershop proprietor claimed that a contract with a barbers' union similar in the main to the one before us lacked consideration and was unenforceable. The court denied the defendant's contention and upheld the contract citing numerous authorities. See also, Teller, Labor Disputes and Collective Bargaining, s. 163 (1950 Supp.).
The case of Wicklund v. Commissioner, 18 Wn. (2d.) 206, cited by the defendant does not seem pertinent. There the court held that nonunion employees, who had not accepted the union as their bargaining agent under a collective bargaining agreement, and who were idled on account of a strike were not "directly interested" in the labor dispute so as to be disqualified from receiving compensation. The question of a lack of consideration in the contract between the union and the employer was not before the court and it is not perceived that this decision affects the present case.
Since the decree entered by the Superior Court is correct, it is unnecessary to consider the exceptions to the findings and rulings upon which it was based.
Decree affirmed.
LAMPRON, J., did not sit; the others concurred.