MASTER SMW & CR ASS'N OF RI, INC. v. LOCAL UN. 17

• Decision Date: 25 July 1975
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 74-274.
• Citation: 397 F. Supp. 1372
• Parties: MASTER SHEET METAL WORKERS AND COMPOSITION ROOFERS ASSOCIATION OF RHODE ISLAND, INC., Individually and on behalf of its members v. LOCAL UNION NO. 17 et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

397 F. Supp. 1372

MASTER SHEET METAL WORKERS AND COMPOSITION ROOFERS ASSOCIATION OF RHODE ISLAND, INC., Individually and on behalf of its members v. LOCAL UNION NO. 17 et al.

Civ. A. No. 74-274.

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island.

July 25, 1975.

Girard R. Visconti, Abedon & Visconti, Providence, R. I., for plaintiffs.

Donald J. Siegel, Segal, Roitman & Coleman, Boston, Mass., for defendants.

OPINION

DAY, District Judge.

This is a civil action wherein the plaintiff, a construction industry "management" association, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief in an effort to forestall the enforcement of an allegedly improper and invalid arbitration award.¹ Specifically, the plaintiff seeks a court order declaring that the aforementioned arbitration award, insofar as it purportedly commands the plaintiff to furnish certain job-related benefits to the members of the defendant Local Union Number 17 (hereinafter Local 17) is "null, void and inoperative". Moreover, as previously alluded to, the plaintiff prays for the issuance of a court order vacating, modifying and/or correcting the arbitration award in question.²

Prior to an analysis and final disposition of the precise legal issues which are presently in controversy before the Court, a brief recital of the pertinent facts herein involved must, in an effort to facilitate disposition of said legal issues, be set forth. Accordingly, an abbreviated statement of the facts presently before this Court follows immediately below.

On July 1, 1973 the plaintiff management association, by and on behalf of its members, executed a collective bargaining agreement with the defendant Local 17. Said agreement governed the

". . . rates of pay, rules and working conditions of all employees of the employer . . ." See 1973-74 Collective Bargaining Agreement, at p. 4.

from July 1, 1973 through and until June 30, 1974. This Court is, for purposes of a reasoned disposition of the matter presently in controversy, particularly and exclusively concerned with Articles eight (8) and ten (10) and Addenda seven (7) through nine (9) of said aforementioned collective bargaining agreement.

Article 8 and Addenda 7 of said 1973-74 agreement both address the issue of the applicable hourly minimum wage for all journeymen sheet metal workers employed "in a shop or on a job" within the jurisdiction of the defendant Local 17. Specifically, Article 8 provides for an hourly minimum wage of nine dollars and thirteen cents ($9.13). Addenda 7 modifies Article 8 by providing for a wage increase, effective as of January 1, 1974, of ten cents per hour. It is both interesting and important to note that Addenda 7, by its terms, expressly conditions the implementation of the aforementioned wage increase on official sanction and approval by the Construction Industry Stabilization Committee (hereinafter "CISC").³

Addenda 8 and 9, cited above, provide for a five (5) cent increase in the hourly rate of monetary benefits to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant Local 17's insurance and pension plan funds, respectively. As was true with the aforementioned wage increases set forth in Addenda 7, these hourly increases in the payments to be deposited in Local 17's insurance and pension plan funds CISC, to have become effective on Janu-were subject to the approval of the ary 1, 1974.

Article ten (10) of the 1973-74 collective bargaining agreement contains a particularized "grievance-arbitration" procedure. Section 5 of said Article 10, which is quoted in pertinent part below, bears particular import to the instant action. Said Section 5 provides, inter alia, as follows:

"Section 5. A Local Joint Adjustment Board and the National Joint Adjustment Board are empowered to render such decisions and grant such relief to either party as they deem necessary and proper, including awards of damages or other compensation and, if it is believed warranted, to direct that the involved agreement and any other agreement or agreements between the employer and any other local union affiliated with the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association be cancelled. . . ." See 1973-74 Collective Bargaining Agreement at p. 14.

Subsequent to the execution of the 1973-74 collective bargaining agreement, that is, on October 9, 1973, the CISC declined to authorize the plaintiff's disbursement of the increments provided for in Addenda 7-9. The CISC, upon Local 17's application for reconsideration, reaffirmed its decision to preclude the implementation of said pertinent wage, insurance fund and pension plan increases.

On April 30, 1974, the federal government's authority to impose wage and price controls expired.⁴ Almost immediately thereafter, certain officers of Local 17 filed a request with representatives of the plaintiff association seeking implementation of the aforementioned wage, insurance fund and pension plan increases. Specifically, said request sought disbursement of the aforementioned increases by the plaintiff from May 1, 1974 through and until the expiration date of the 1973-74 collective bargaining agreement, that is, through and until June 30, 1974. The plaintiff refused to comply with said implementation request.

Subsequent thereto, that is on June 14, 1974, Local 17 notified the plaintiff that, pursuant to the dictates of Article 10 of the 1973-74 collective bargaining agreement, it wanted to submit the dispute concerning the propriety of the plaintiff's disbursement of the increases provided for in Addenda 7-9 to arbitration. The plaintiff rejected Local 17's demand for arbitration.

Notwithstanding the plaintiff's aforementioned refusal, Local 17 submitted the dispute in question to arbitration. An arbitration hearing was held on October 23, 1974,⁵ and, pursuant thereto, an award was entered by the arbitrators in favor of Local 17.⁶

One final, and significant, factual circumstance must be noted. Prior to the expiration of the 1973-74 collective bargaining agreement, the parties presently before the Court entered into contract negotiations on an agreement which would govern the rates of pay, rules and working conditions of all of Local 17's members employed by the plaintiff from July 1, 1974 through and until June 30, 1975. No final, comprehensive and/or integrated collective bargaining agreement resulted from said contract negotiations. It is important to note that no formal collective bargaining agreement has ever been executed for the 1974-75 contract term. Notwithstanding the lack of a formalized and integrated agreement, however, the negotiating parties did reach a new one year agreement concerning applicable hourly wages, insurance fund and pension plan benefits.⁷ It is of ultimate importance to note that this less than comprehensive, yet binding, agreement concerning wage, and other monetary benefits, did not expressly include any provision for Local 17's receipt of the increments set forth in Addenda 7-9 of the 1973-74 collective bargaining agreement.

As previously mentioned, the plaintiff has brought this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in an effort to forestall the enforcement of the aforementioned arbitration award. Specifically, it is the plaintiff's contention that said award is subject to vacation and/or modification as being invalid and improper because:

A. The dispute between the parties herein involved as to the propriety of the plaintiff's disbursement of the increments set forth in Addenda 7-9 is not an arbitrable grievance;

B. The arbitrators made a material mistake in interpreting both the 1973-74 bargaining agreement and the CISC orders rejecting the proposed wage, insurance fund and pension plan increases.

C. The arbitrators manifestly disregarded applicable principles of law in arriving at, and issuing, the award in question.

D. The arbitrators exceeded their authority by ordering the plaintiff to furnish the wage, insurance fund and pension plan increases in question to Local 17's members from May 1, 1974 through and including June 30, 1975.

The defendant has, in response, denied the validity of each of the four (4) aforementioned contentions and has, in addition filed a counterclaim by which it seeks a court order:

"a. Enforcing Article X Section 3 Panel Decision in full.

b. Awarding defendants their costs, including reasonable counsel fees involved in this action.

c. Granting such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper." See Defendant's answer and counterclaim, at p. 7.

This matter is presently before the Court on cross-motions which have been filed by the parties to the collective bargaining agreements in question. Specifically, the plaintiff seeks the issuance of a court order (1) declaring the arbitration award in question to be invalid, and (2) vacating and/or modifying said award. Additionally, the defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment whereby it prays for the entry of a court order enforcing the arbitration award in question and sustaining the aforementioned counterclaim. Consideration of the merits of the instant motions will follow immediately below.

I. ARBITRABILITY OF THE PARTIES' DISPUTE

As previously mentioned, the plaintiff has posited, after-the-fact of arbitration, the threshold argument that the dispute in question should not, in the first instance, have been submitted to the arbitrators herein involved for decision. It is the plaintiff's contention that the aforementioned dispute was not arbitrable insofar as —

"It is clear that CISC orders are not subject to arbitration but that the Federal Courts have exclusive jurisdiction for appellate and review purposes." See plaintiff's memorandum in support of its complaint, at p. 16;

See also 211 of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970.⁸

The plaintiff's argument concerning the non-arbitrability of the grievance in question is consistent with its more than slightly erroneous version of the disagreement which was, in fact, submitted to arbitration. In simpler terms, ...