Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dayton Co. v. Carpet, Linoleum & Resilient Floor Decorators' Union

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 24, 1949No. 34,893Published

1DissentThomas Gallagher, Justice

I am of the opinion that defendants should have been permitted to introduce testimony as to the agreement between the union and plaintiff.

The writing of May 26,1947, is a “memorandum of Agreement confirm [ing] the verbal understanding” between various retail department stores of Minneapolis employing members of Local No. 596, whereunder they agreed to “observe and maintain conditions of employment relating [only] to rates of pay, daily and weekly work hours of employment, and overtime rates of pap for those employees who are members of said Union, in accordance with the minimum standards…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cargill Commission Co. v. SwartwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
  2. Vaughan v. McCarthySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
  3. Osterberg v. Section 30 Development Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
  4. Harding v. Texoleum Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1922

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API