The opinion of the court was delivered by: FOLLMER
This action was instituted by the plaintiff for the purpose of requiring defendants to reinstate him in the position he occupied with them before entering the military service and in which following his honorable discharge he had been reemployed and from which he was subsequently discharged within the one year period, and to recover losses of wages and benefits, pursuant to the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, 56 Stat. 724, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 308(e), hereinafter, for convenience, referred to as the Act.
1. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter under Section 8(e) of the Selective Training and Service Act, as amended, Title 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 308, and as extended by the Service Extension Act of 1941, Title 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 357.
2. Plaintiff and defendants are all residents of the City of Philadelphia, and State of Pennsylvania and within the jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Defendants are engaged in the City of Philadelphia, under the trade name of Rietheimer and Barfield, as trucking contractors operating a fleet of trucks.
4. Plaintiff entered the employ of defendants as a truck and trailer driver December 14, 1944, and continued in that capacity until his induction into the armed services of the United States on April 6, 1945.
5. Plaintiff was honorably discharged from the armed services of the United States on October 14, 1945.
6. Plaintiff was reemployed by defendants on or about October 16, 1945.
7. Defendants had for a number of years been employed as contract haulers for Cooper Brewing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
8. On one occasion plaintiff was assigned by defendants to drive a load of beer from the Cooper Brewery. Before leaving the brewery, plaintiff was instructed by Nathaniel F. Cooper, President of the brewery, to cover the beer. Plaintiff told Cooper to mind his 'own d -- -- business.' Cooper immediately reported the incident to defendants and told them he could not have that type of driver delivering their beer.
9. Again plaintiff was assigned by defendants to drive a load of beer from the Cooper Brewery to a distributor of Cooper at Camp Meade, Maryland. The customary procedure was to deliver the beer at Camp Meade and then to proceed to Annapolis and pick up a load of 'empties', or vice versa; the drivers were expected to cooperate with the distributors. On this occasion plaintiff called Mr. Cooper late one evening and told him it was too late and that he would not pick up the 'empties.' Cooper said 'I want you to stay. I will wire you money.' Plaintiff replied, 'Nuts, I have got $ 25.00 but I just won't use it.' Plaintiff's conduct here was not only disrespectful but definitely insubordinate, and threatened a continuance of the employment of defendants by Cooper.
10. Following the above incidents a hearing was conducted by Union officials, at which defendants were instructed by the Union to reemploy plaintiff.
11. After being directed by the Union to reemploy plaintiff, defendant Barfield told plaintiff that he would put him back to work but that the first time ...