BEAUMONT COCA-COLA v. BREWERY, SOFT DRINK, ETC., Civ. A. No. B-81-51-CA.
| Citation | 535 F. Supp. 588 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. B-81-51-CA. |
| Parties | BEAUMONT COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY v. BREWERY, SOFT DRINK, INDUSTRIAL AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION LOCAL 1111. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Ronald Henson, Ford, Harrison, Sullivan, Lowry & Sykes, Atlanta, Ga., James H. Chestnutt, II, Orgain Bell & Tucker, Beaumont, Tex., for plaintiff.
Robert A. Cattanach, Cattanach, Coe & Barfield, Houston, Tex., for defendant.
This case is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties have filed a stipulation as to the essential facts in this dispute over whether the grievance of an employee of the plaintiff and member of the defendant union should be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement in existence between the parties.
The parties are signatories to collective bargaining agreements covering certain of plaintiff's employees; the first agreement effective from October 26, 1976, until October 17, 1979, and the second agreement effective from October 19, 1979, continuing in effect until October 25, 1982. On July 16, 1979, plaintiff's general manager, Sid Hodges, issued to James Kotz, an employee, a letter suspending Kotz from employment "until such time as the Company has acceptable information that you can return to your job of Senior Route Salesman without risk of injury to yourself or others or further aggravation to your old condition."
The next day, the union filed a written grievance protesting Kotz' suspension. The grievance was denied by Hodges that day. On July 18, 1979, the defendant invoked the second step of the grievance process by submitting the grievance in writing to Hodges. On July 14, Hodges met with union's shop steward and denied the grievance in writing.
By letter of July 23, defendant's secretary wrote to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) requesting a panel of nine arbitrators so that plaintiff and defendant could select an arbitrator and dispose of the grievance. The FMCS sent a list to the parties, but on August 24, counsel for plaintiff rejected the panel and requested another panel. The FMCS sent another list on September 10.
Shortly thereafter, the defendants attorney informed plaintiff that the union intended to pursue Mr. Kotz' remedies by filing a lawsuit in state court. On October 3, 1979, the plaintiff requested the defendant to proceed with the arbitration by choosing an arbitrator by each side striking one member until only one member was left. Defendant refused to proceed because it was pursuing the state court action, although defendant stated that it did not wish to drop the arbitration completely.
Finally, the parties have stipulated that the grievance protesting the suspension of James Kotz is one which is subject to the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement, that the grievance has not been resolved, that plaintiff continues to seek to have defendant join in selecting an arbitrator, and that defendant refuses to proceed with the arbitration on the ground that the grievant made an independent decision to pursue remedies under state law.
The plaintiff contends that the sole issue in the case is whether the grievance falls within the arbitration provision in the collective bargaining agreements, and that since the defendant has stipulated to that fact, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the defendant must proceed with arbitration in accordance with the written collective bargaining agreement.
The defendant contends that the real issue is whether the plaintiff committed an intentional tort in the suspension of Kotz, and to find for the plaintiff would penalize the employee for joining a labor union. The defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Turillo v. Tyson, Civ. A. No. 81-0356.
-
Shirley v. Maxicare Texas, Inc.
...may nevertheless order arbitration. In the principal case cited by Maxicare, Beaumont Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Brewery, Soft Drink, Indus. and Allied Workers Union Local 1111, 535 F.Supp. 588 (E.D.Tex.1982), in which the district court ordered the parties to arbitrate their dispute, the fe......