INTERNATIONAL U., UA, A. & AIW v. Folding Carrier Corp., 216-69.
| Decision Date | 02 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 216-69.,216-69. |
| Citation | 422 F.2d 47 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW) and its Amalgamated Local Union 256, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FOLDING CARRIER CORPORATION, a Division of Unarco Industries, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
John P. Sizemore, Little Rock, Ark. (McMath, Leatherman, Woods & Youngdahl, Little Rock, Ark., and George J. McCaffrey, Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellees.
Francis S. Irvine, Oklahoma City, Okl., (Mueller & Mueller, Ft. Worth, Tex., and Kerr, Davis, Irvine & Burbage, Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.
Before BREITENSTEIN and HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN, District Judge.
The Unions, plaintiffs-appellees, brought suit under § 301 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, to require specific performance of the provisions of a collective bargaining contract relating to the arbitration of disputes. The Unions and the defendant-appellant Company are admittedly subject to the Act. The district court decreed specific performance and the Company appeals.
The Company has a manufacturing business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Unions and the Company had a collective bargaining agreement which expired in July, 1967. Efforts to negotiate a new agreement failed, and the Unions went on strike in September, 1967. The strikers were replaced by new employees. A new contract became effective on February 26, 1968, and the strike ended. The Company thereafter reemployed some of the strikers.
The new contract provided in its Article VI, § 1, that "any dispute arising in respect to the interpretation or application of any of the terms of this agreement" would be processed in accordance with an agreed grievance procedure which contained three steps. With unimportant exceptions the grievance is presented at Step One to the Foreman, at Step Two to the Superintendent, and at Step Three to the Chief Resident Executive Officer of the Company. If the grievance is not settled at Step Three, it goes to arbitration.
On March 28, 1968, the Unions wrote the Company complaining that the Company had failed "to staff the plant with employees holding the most seniority under the contract," and that it had called back "certain ex-strikers as `new employees,' when they clearly hold seniority under the contract." The Unions said that the grievances were not "easily susceptible" to the procedures outlined in the first steps and suggested that they be taken up at Step Three, as was provided for certain specific grievances. On April 3 the Company replied that it would not circumvent the established grievance procedure.
On May 17 the Unions presented the March 28 letter with a new date and cover letter to a foreman. When he did not reply within the time fixed by Step One, the Unions wrote the plant superintendent and asked for a meeting pursuant to Step Two. He replied that the "purported grievances have not been raised, presented, or processed in accordance with the contractual provisions." On June 4 the Unions gave a redated version of the March 28 letter to the foreman, who replied that the letter did not present a grievance. On June 17 the attorney for the Unions wrote the Company and demanded arbitration of the substantive and procedural questions. The request was rejected by a letter saying that there was "no pending grievance in respect to which arbitration is required." The Unions then brought suit for specific performance under § 301. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bel Pre Medical Center, Inc. v. Frederick Contractors, Inc.
...of Teamsters Local 70 v. Consol. Freightways Corp. of Del., 335 F.2d 642, 643-644 (9th Cir. 1964); International UAW v. Folding Carrier Corp., 422 F.2d 47, 49 (10th Cir. 1970). Accord, Southwestern New Hampshire Transp. Co. v. Durham, 102 N.H. 169, 152 A.2d 596, 602 (1959).17 This rule was ......
-
Raceway Park, Inc. v. Local 47, Service Employees Intern. Union
...Int'l Local 317 v. Lorillard Corp., 448 F.2d 949, 953 (4th Cir.1971); International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculture Implement Workers v. Folding Carrier Corp., 422 F.2d 47, 49 (10th Cir.1970); Chambers v. Beaunit Corp., 404 F.2d 128, 131 (6th Cir.1968); Palestine Tel. Co......
-
Wood v. City of Topeka, Kan., Topeka Housing Auth.
...on both the substantive and procedural aspects of the claim); International Union, United Auto., Aerospace and Agr. Implement Workers of America (UAW) v. Folding Carrier Corp., 422 F.2d 47, 49 (10th Cir. 1970) (holding whether grievance procedure was complied with is an issue to be determin......
-
Niro v. Fearn Intern., Inc.
...Employees Union, Local 618 v. Town and Country Ford, Inc., 709 F.2d 509, 511-14 (8th Cir.1983); International Union v. Folding Carrier Corp., 422 F.2d 47, 49 (10th Cir.1970); Local 51, IBEW v. Illinois Power Co., 357 F.2d 916, 918-19 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 850, 87 S.Ct. 78, 17 L......