Great Falls Mill & Smeltermen's Union No. 16 v. Anaconda Co.

• Citation: 260 F. Supp. 445
• Decision Date: 08 November 1966
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 2592.
• Parties: GREAT FALLS MILL AND SMELTERMEN'S UNION NO. 16 OF the INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL AND SMELTER WORKERS and the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Plaintiffs, v. The ANACONDA COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Montana

260 F. Supp. 445

GREAT FALLS MILL AND SMELTERMEN'S UNION NO. 16 OF the INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL AND SMELTER WORKERS and the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Plaintiffs, v. The ANACONDA COMPANY, Defendant.

Civ. No. 2592.

United States District Court D. Montana, Great Falls Division.

November 8, 1966.

Charles V. Huppe, Helena, Mont., for plaintiffs.

R. Lewis Brown, Jr., William J. Kelly, Butte, Mont., for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

RUSSELL E. SMITH, District Judge.

The defendant (called Anaconda) owns and operates a plant in Great Falls, Montana. The plaintiffs (called the Unions) are the bargaining agent for the employees in the plant. This action is brought to enforce the award of an arbitrator under Section 301 of the Labor Relations Management Act.¹

The dispute revolves about the order in which the employees of Anaconda were called back to work following a strike. The agreement between the Unions and Anaconda contains arbitration provisions. It is not clear from the record just how the controversy came to be submitted, but the parties did agree that an arbitrator should decide this issue:

"Did the Company violate the seniority provisions of the collective bargaining agreement in recalling and assigning employees to work between January 30th and February 12th, 1964?"

A hearing was had and following the hearing the arbitrator made the following award:

"AWARD

"Based upon the considerations set forth above and good and sufficient reasons appearing therefor, it is the decision and award of the undersigned arbitrator as follows:

1. The Company violated the seniority provisions of the collective bargaining agreement in recalling and assigning employees to work between January 30th and February 12th, 1964, in that employees should have been recalled to work during the foregoing period in order of departmental seniority, but were not always recalled in that order.

2. The parties in accordance with their stipulation of record are to work out details relating to the payment of back wages to any employees who were not recalled in proper order."

Anaconda, in support of its motion for summary judgment, urges that the award of the arbitrator was outside the scope of the issues submitted. This argument is based upon language contained in the arbitrator's opinion.²

The arbitrator, in the course of his opinion, said:

"Contract Provisions Involved.

The contract provisions relating to seniority extend over several pages. Suffice to say for the purposes of this case that they provide, among other things, for both `plant seniority' and `departmental seniority'; that in the event of layoffs in a department, plant seniority is to prevail in recalling employees to work, and that there are no specific provisions relating to order of recalling employees after strikes."

Anaconda argues on the basis of language in United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593,³ 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424, that the arbitrator having held that there were no specific provisions relating to the recalling of employees after strikes, must have gone out of the collective bargaining agreement to reach the result he did.

The court does not so interpret the award. The Unions have urged that the provisions of Section 7 of Article 7, required that the employees be recalled in order of plant seniority. So far as is pertinent here, those provisions read:

"Section 7. Layoffs in a Department.

(a) When it is necessary to curtail the work force in a department or a department subdivision, the employee at the bottom of the applicable seniority list shall be the first to be curtailed. His plant seniority shall then govern as to whether he shall be retained in the plant or curtailed from the plant. The company will furnish the local Union a list of those employees who are laid off.

(b) In recalling employees after a curtailment they shall be recalled as closely as possible in the reverse order to that described in Part (a) of this section provided they can perform the work available * * *."

Although the contract contains no specific provisions regarding seniority following strikes, the arbitrator might have interpreted the word "curtailment" in Section 7(b) to include the reduction in work force following a strike. The thought that the arbitrator intended to enforce a contractual obligation is reinforced by his use of the word "interpretation". As guides to interpretation the arbitrator relied upon prior history and the statements of an Anaconda superintendent. In any event it is not apparent that the arbitrator went beyond the submission and unless it is apparent the award must be enforced....