Alabama Power Co. v. Local Union No. 391, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, U-19

Decision Date29 February 1980
Docket NumberNo. 78-1461,U-19,I,78-1461
Citation612 F.2d 960
Parties103 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2691, 88 Lab.Cas. P 11,893 ALABAMA POWER COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOCAL UNION NO. 391, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, an Unincorporated Association, System Councilnternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, an Unincorporated Association, Defendants-Appellants. Summary Calendar. *
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Charles Y. Boyd, Clarence F. Rhea, Gadsden, Ala., for defendants-appellants.

Balch, Bingham, Baker, Hawtorne, Williams & Ward, Harold A. Bowron, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before CHARLES CLARK, VANCE, and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Aubrey Moncrief, an employee of Alabama Power Company, was involved in a shooting incident with the police of Oxford, Alabama, as a result of which he was suspended from his employment. Local Union 391, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, of which Moncrief was a member, filed a grievance objecting to Moncrief's suspension. The collective bargaining agreement provided a three-stage grievance procedure culminating in binding arbitration. The Company denied the grievance at each stage, and the Union finally requested arbitration of the grievance.

After the request for arbitration but before the arbitration had commenced, the Grand Jury indicted Moncrief, whereupon the Company "converted" his suspension into a discharge. Shortly thereafter Union and Company officials met to discuss the grievance of another employee. The Union contends that at that meeting the Company waived the necessity for filing a separate grievance for his discharge; the Company asserts that no such waiver was made, or that if it was made, it was ineffective.

The grievance then proceeded to arbitration. The Company sought to submit to the arbitrator only the issue of Moncrief's suspension and not the issue of his discharge. The Union asserted that because both the suspension and the discharge arose from the same event, both issues were properly before the arbitrator. The arbitrator agreed with the Union, ruling that although "this action, when grieved, was categorized as a suspension pending investigation, the action was, to use the Company's terminology, 'converted' to discharge. It follows that the grievance was automatically converted as well." The arbitrator therefore determined the issue to be whether the suspension and discharge of Moncrief were for just cause. It determined that the Company's action was without just cause and awarded Moncrief reinstatement and back pay.

The Company then sued in the Northern District of Alabama for a declaratory judgment and to set aside the arbitral award to the extent that it determined matters involving Moncrief's discharge. The Union moved for summary judgment based on the collective bargaining agreement and the arbitral award. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because the Union did not present the discharge grievance in accordance with contract procedures. The case proceeded to trial confined to the issue whether the Company had waived those procedures. After trial, the court found neither waiver nor estoppel and declared the arbitrator's award void as having been made without jurisdiction. The Union appeals. We reverse.

It is well-settled that the federal labor laws embody a policy favoring arbitration as a substitute for industrial strife. See United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co., 363 U.S. 564, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1960); United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960); United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960). The Steelworkers Trilogy limits the role of the courts in those disputes subject to arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement. Generally speaking, the court merely ascertains "whether the party seeking arbitration is making a claim which on its face is governed by the contract," American Manufacturing Co., 363 U.S. at 568, 80 S.Ct. at 1346, without regard to the merits of the claim; courts must give the arbitration clause a broad reading, with all doubts resolved in favor of the arbitration clause's coverage of the dispute. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. at 582-83, 80 S.Ct. at 1352-53. Moreover, because the parties have bargained for the arbitrator's construction of the agreement, courts cannot overrule his decision merely because their interpretation of the contract is different from his; the arbitrator's words must "manifest an infidelity" to the collective bargaining agreement. Enterprise...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Rasheed v. International Paper Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • June 25, 1993
    ...Great Western Food Co., 712 F.2d 122 (5th Cir.), reh'g den., 717 F.2d 1399 (1983); see also Alabama Power Co. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 612 F.2d 960, 962 (5th Cir.1980); Safeway Stores v. American Bakery and Confectionery Workers, 390 F.2d 79, 82 (5th 20. Suits bro......
  • Chicago Typographical Union No. 16 v. Chicago Sun-Times, Inc., SUN-TIME
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • October 31, 1988
    ... ... v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 648-50, 106 S.Ct. 1415, ... International Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local 150 v. Flair Builders, Inc., 406 U.S. 487, ... 1710, 1712-13, 32 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972); Alabama Power Co. v. Local Union No. 391, Int'l Bhd. of ... ...
  • International Union of Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Ingram Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • September 26, 1983
    ...favor of coverage), then it is for the arbitrator to decide whether or not the dispute may be arbitrated." Alabama Power Co. v. Local Union No. 391, 612 F.2d 960, 963 (5th Cir.1980). We get further guidance on this issue from the Warrior & Gulf case. In that case the Supreme Court told us t......
  • Baldwin Piano & Organ Co. v. INTERN. CHEMICAL WRKRS. U., Civ. A. No. GC 82-121-WK-O.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • May 20, 1983
    ...it is the arbitrator, and not the court, that determines whether the dispute may be arbitrated. Alabama Power Company v. Local Union No. 391, 612 F.2d 960, 963 (5th Cir.1980). Moreover, the arbitrator determines whether he has jurisdiction to entertain a grievance as well as resolve it on t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT