Kansas City Luggage & Nov. Wkrs. U. v. Neevel Luggage Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 January 1964
• Docket Number: No. 17397.,17397.
• Citation: 325 F.2d 992
• Parties: KANSAS CITY LUGGAGE & NOVELTY WORKERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 66, AFL-CIO, Appellant, v. NEEVEL LUGGAGE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Inc., Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

325 F.2d 992 (1964)

KANSAS CITY LUGGAGE & NOVELTY WORKERS UNION, LOCAL NO. 66, AFL-CIO, Appellant, v. NEEVEL LUGGAGE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Inc., Appellee.

No. 17397.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

January 13, 1964.

William D. Cosgrove, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.

Harry L. Browne, Kansas City, Mo., Howard F. Sachs, Spencer, Fane, Britt & Browne, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.

Before SANBORN, VOGEL and BLACKMUN, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant union, which has a collective bargaining agreement with appellee, Neevel Luggage Manufacturing Company, Inc., brought this action to enforce the award of an arbitrator, selected by the parties, determining that the Company, in laying off eight of its employees, who were members of the Union, had violated provisions of the collective agreement relating to layoffs and that the aggrieved employees were entitled to be reinstated without loss of seniority or of pay.

The question submitted, by agreement, to the arbitrator was:

"Was the layoff of Caroline De Maria on May 15 1962 and the layoffs of Helen Kirkman, Marie Geisstdorfer, Opal Snyder, Martha Herold, Lavetta Evans, Gladys Simpson, and Marta Glowicki on or about May 18 improper under the terms of the contract between the parties?"

The award was that the layoffs were improper, and that the employees should be restored to jobs without delay, "with seniority unimpaired and with pay for time lost (not including sick leave time), less earnings and unemployment compensation."

The Company, without challenging the arbitrator's determination that the layoffs in question were "improper under the terms of the contract between the parties," filed a motion with the arbitrator asking for reconsideration of the question of back pay or the elimination from the award of any reference to it.

The Union took the position, on the Company's motion before the arbitrator, that the arbitration award, once having been made, became final and conclusive, and that he was without power to change it. The Company contended that the arbitrator, in dealing with the question of reimbursement for time lost by the aggrieved employees, had exceeded his authority and had decided a question not submitted to him for determination, and not directly covered by the terms of the collective agreement.

In denying the Company's motion for reconsideration of the question of allowance of back pay, the arbitrator said:

"* * * Back pay was not mentioned in the submission agreement, dated June 26 1962, during the long hearing, or in the extensive briefs the parties filed. If the Arbitrator\'s recollection of his mental processes is correct, he awarded compensation on the principle that an employee improperly laid off is entitled to more than a naked answer to the question whether the collective bargaining agreement had been violated.

* * * * * * *

"An arbitrator certainly should be sensitive whenever his authority is put into question — in utter good faith, as here. And he is indeed in a dilemma when one side charges that he has already exceeded it, and the other side — without directly defending the `offending\' portions of the Award — insists that he is utterly without power to correct his mistakes, no matter how serious.

"Even though the Company has presented a proposition meriting attention and regretting the Union\'s unwillingness to stipulate for its reconsideration, the said motion is, in the opinion of the Arbitrator, beyond his reach. One error in a case should be enough; he will not run the risk of committing another, and thus further complicate the relationship of the parties. The Company must be referred to some other tribunal to test the validity of the objectionable portions of the Award."

The Company reinstated the employees who were found...