# Mahoney v. Sailors' Union of the Pacific

> Washington Supreme Court · October 25, 1954 · 45 Wash. 2d 453

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9559783

## Case

- **Full name:** John Mahoney, Respondent, v. Sailors’ Union of the Pacific Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 25, 1954
- **Citations:** 45 Wash. 2d 453; 275 P.2d 440; 35 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2111; 1954 Wash. LEXIS 433
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Finley
- **Judges:** Hamley
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9559783

## Opinion text

*466 Finley, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part)— The majority takes the position that the N.L.R.B. has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the question of whether the union committed an unfair labor practice entitling Mahoney to damages for loss of employment and wages. The portion of the judgment of the trial court awarding compensatory damages to Mahoney is reversed. I agree with this. However, the majority holds that the portion of the judgment of the trial court ordering the reinstatement of Mahoney to union membership is a matter within the jurisdiction of the trial court because reinstatement, in this instance, does not relate to discrimination in, or loss of, employment, but to an entirely different matter—namely, the protection of Ma-honey’s property rights in the funds, assets, or treasury of the union. I agree with the majority. The N.L.R.B. has no jurisdiction to order reinstatement of Mahoney for the purpose stated hereinbefore (protection of his property rights in the union’s funds or treasury). For the reasons indicated in my dissent (43 Wn. (2d) 874, 264 P. (2d) 1095 ), I think Mahoney’s expulsion was not improper, and I must disagree with the majority’s affirmance of the trial court’s judgment relative to this aspect of the case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9559783. Public record. Not legal advice.