Rawson v. United Steelworkers of America , 111 Idaho 630 ( 1986 )

SHEPARD, Justice,

dissenting.

I concur in Part I of the majority opinion wherein it affirms the trial court’s issuance of summary judgment relating to the fraud claim. I also concur in Part III of the majority opinion wherein it holds that the instant action is not preempted by federal law. I dissent from Part II of the majority opinion wherein it reverses the trial court’s issuance of summary judgment on the negligence claim.

Less than two years ago this Court, with only Bistline, J. dissenting, affirmed a summary judgment granted to the United Steelworkers of America as defendant in an identical case. In Carroll, plaintiff was a mine worker in the same mining district as that in the instant case. In Carroll the same collective bargaining agreement existed between the same union and a company employer. Carroll was injured while working in the mine. Carroll was a member and brought action against the United Steel Workers of America. In Carroll, as here, it was asserted that the union owed a duty to Carroll since Carroll was the third-party beneficiary of the contract between the union and the employer.

I find the facts and the holding of Carroll indistinguishable from the present case. In Carroll the Court stated:

“Under Idaho law it is settled that an alleged failure to perform a contractual obligation is not actionable in tort____ Mere nonfeasance, even if it amounts to a willful neglect to perform the contract, is insufficient to establish a duty in tort____ Consequently, Carroll’s cause of action, if any, arising from the Collective Bargaining Agreement lies only in contract, not in tort.”

In support of that holding, the Carroll Court discussed House v. Mine Safety Appliances Company, 417 F.Supp. 939 (1976), stating:

“Judge Anderson, in dicta, discussed public policy considerations which relate to the issue of imposing tort liability on the basis of a collective bargaining agreement____ To impose liability on the union in a case such as this is against public policy and would seriously disrupt labor relations policy.”