United Electrical, R. & M. Wkrs. v. Miller Metal Prod.
Decision Date | 14 August 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 6809.,6809. |
Citation | 215 F.2d 221 |
Parties | UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA et al. v. MILLER METAL PRODUCTS, Inc. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
I. Duke Avnet, Baltimore, Md. (David Scribner, New York City, Basil R. Pollitt, Brooklyn, N. Y., and Avnet & Avnet, Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellants.
Bernard J. Seff, Baltimore, Md., for appellee.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, DOBIE, Circuit Judge, and TIMMERMAN, District Judge.
This is an appeal in an action brought by an employer under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185, to recover damages for breach of a no-strike clause in a collective bargaining agreement. The defendant unions made a motion to stay further proceedings in the case until arbitration could be had pursuant to the terms of the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-14. The District Court denied the stay on the authority of this court's decision in International Union United Furniture Workers of America v. Colonial Hardwood Flooring Co., 4 Cir., 168 F.2d 33, in which it was held that a provision for arbitration in a collective bargaining agreement, very similar to the arbitration provisions relied on here, did not cover claims for damages on account of strikes, and that, at all events, the controversy fell within the exclusion clause of the arbitration act because it arose out of a contract of employment of workers engaged in interstate commerce. The union has appealed contending that the subject matter of the dispute is arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement and that, in so far as the Colonial Hardwood case holds that contracts of this sort fall within the exclusion clause of the arbitration act, that case should be reconsidered and overruled.
We think that the District Judge was clearly right in holding that the claim for damages on account of breach of the no-strike clause of the contract is not covered by the arbitration clause. The provisions of the contract relating to arbitration are sections 44, 45 and 46 under the general heading of Grievance Procedure and Arbitration and the pertinent portions thereof are as follows:
The no-strike provision of the contract is under a separate heading entitled "no-strike and no lockout" and is clearly not subject to the prior "grievance procedure and arbitration" provisions. The pertinent portion thereof is as follows:
What we said in the Colonial Hardwood case, supra, 168 F.2d at page 35, with respect to the contract there involved is clearly applicable to the contract here, viz.:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gilmer v. Interstate Johnson Lane Corporation
...America, 230 F.2d 81 (CA5 1956), rev'd, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 912, 1 L.Ed.2d 972 (1957); United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America v. Miller Metal Products, Inc., 215 F.2d 221 (CA4 1954); Amalgamated Assn. of Street, Electric R. and Motor Coach Employees of America v. Pennsylva......
-
Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama v. United Textile Workers of America Local 1802 General Electric Company v. Local 205, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America
...See Amalgamated Association, etc. v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 3 Cir., 192 F.2d 310; United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America v. Miller Metal Products, Inc., 4 Cir., 215 F.2d 221; Lincoln Mills of Alabama v. Textile Workers Union, 5 Cir., 230 F.2d 81; United Steelworkers of......
-
Nieves v. Individualized Shirts
...948 F.2d 305 (6th Cir.1991) (in dicta, adopting broad reading of § 1's exclusionary clause); United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Miller Metal Prods., 215 F.2d 221, 224 (4th Cir. 1954) 4. Nor could she. The regulations indicate that an individual must be significantly restricted in......
-
Crawford v. West Jersey Health Systems
...Inc., 948 F.2d 305 (6th Cir.1991) (adopting broad reading of § 1's exclusionary clause); United Electrical, Radio & Mechanical Workers v. Miller Metal Prods., 215 F.2d 221, 224 (4th Cir.1954) (same). See also Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 36, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 1657, 11......
-
Chapter 2
...(1923).[45] . The Fourth Circuit had taken a contrary position in United Electrical, Radial & Machine Workers v. Miller Metal Products, 215 F.2d 221, 234, 34 L.R.R.M. 2731 (4th Cir. 1954), but without explicitly overruling its prior decision has so moved away from its position in that case ......
-
Arbitrating Employment Disputes; Greener Pastures for Employers
...(9th Cir.) cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 1319 (1990); United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America v. Miller Metal Products, Inc., 215 F.2d 221, 224 (4th Cir.1954)). [FN13]. Shortly after the Gilmer decision was handed down, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an arbitration clau......
-
Enforcing arbitration agreements between employers and employees.
...common law and had been adopted by American courts"). (4.) See, e.g., United Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers of Am. v. Miller Metal Prod., 215 F.2d 221, 224 (4th Cir. 1954). (5.) Employers of union workers sometimes have argued that collective bargaining contracts are not "contracts of emplo......
-
Brisentine v. Stone & Webster Engineering - William White
...Stores, Inc., 889 F.2d 940, 943-44 (10th Cir. 1989). 19. See, e.g., United Elec, Radio & Mach. Workers v. Miller Metal Prods., Inc., 215 F.2d 221, 224 (4th Cir. 1954). 20. Pryner, 109 F.3d at 357. 21. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185 (1994). 22. See, e.g., Martin v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 911 F.2d ......