Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, Intern. Union, United Auto., Aerospace and Agr. Implement Workers of America (UAW), Nos. 1160

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
Writing for the CourtBefore LUMBARD, HAYS and TIMBERS; HAYS
Citation500 F.2d 921
Parties86 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3240, 74 Lab.Cas. P 10,222 BELL AEROSPACE COMPANY DIVISION OF TEXTRON, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCAL 516, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW), Defendant-Appellee, Niagara Frontier Technical Association, Local 205, American Federation of Technical Engineers, Defendant-Appellant. ockets 73-1487, 74-1135.
Decision Date26 July 1974
Docket Number1161,D,Nos. 1160

Page 921

500 F.2d 921
86 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3240, 74 Lab.Cas. P 10,222
BELL AEROSPACE COMPANY DIVISION OF TEXTRON, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LOCAL 516, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE
AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW),
Defendant-Appellee, Niagara Frontier Technical Association,
Local 205, American Federation of Technical Engineers,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 1160, 1161, Dockets 73-1487, 74-1135.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued June 12, 1974.
Decided July 26, 1974.

Page 922

Richard E. Moot, Buffalo, N.Y. (Mason O. Damon, James N. Schmit, and Ohlin, Damon, Morey, Sawyer & Moot, Buffalo, N.Y., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

Richard Lipsitz, Buffalo, N.Y. (Eugene W. Salisbury and Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Schuller & James, Buffalo, N.Y., on the brief), for defendant-appellee.

Thomas P. McMahon, Buffalo, N.Y., for defendant-appellant.

Before LUMBARD, HAYS and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.

HAYS, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal by two parties from a judgment of the district court confirming an arbitration award in a jurisdictional dispute among an employer and two unions over assignment of jobs in the employer's plant. Local 516, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), defends the award and judgment of the district court in all respects. Niagara Frontier Technical Association, Local 205, American Federation of Technical Engineers, appeals on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his powers, denied Local 205 a fair hearing, and acted with evident partiality. We hold that these claims lack merit and to that extent we affirm the decision of the district court. The employer, Bell Aerospace Company, appeals on the ground that the award was ambiguous and contradictory and should have been remanded for clarification. We find this claim justified and to that extent we reverse and remand.

I.

In September and October 1970 Local 516 filed two grievances claiming that jobs properly belonging to its members under its collective bargaining agreement with Bell had been assigned to members of Local 205. Bell tried but failed to obtain a Unit Clarification Order from the National Labor Relations Board. Bell then filed a grievance against Local 205 and demanded arbitration. On July 30, 1971, Bell filed in the district court a complaint against both unions under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185 (1970), and sought an order to compel tripartite arbitration. On August 5, 1971, the court preliminarily enjoined further arbitration proceedings until it could dispose of Bell's complaint. On January 12, 1972, acting pursuant to 9 U.S.C. 4 (1970), the district court ordered that all grievances be heard in a single proceeding before an arbitrator.

After conducting hearings and receiving exhibits and briefs the arbitrator issued his award on January 30, 1973. Local 205 petitioned the district court to vacate the award and Local 516 moved to confirm the award. On March 14, 1973, the court granted the motion of Local 516. On April 17, 1973, Local 205 moved to vacate the award on the ground that the arbitrator had so imperfectly executed his powers that a final, definite award was not made. Bell cross moved on the same ground to have the award remanded to the arbitrator for clarification. On May 17, 1973, the district court granted Bell's motion.

On June 28, 1973, the arbitrator issued his clarification. Local 516 moved in the district court to confirm the award as clarified. Bell opposed the motion on the ground that the award was still ambiguous despite the clarification. The district court agreed that 'the language of the award appears to be contradictory.' Nevertheless the court confirmed the award on the ground that the arbitrator had done 'his best' and that there was 'no reason to believe that a remand would lead to any additional clarification.'

Bell and Local 205 appealed.

II.

Local 205 claims that the award must be vacated because the arbitrator exceeded

Page 923

his powers, denied a fair hearing, and showed partiality.

A federal court may vacate the award of an arbitrator only on the grounds specified in 9 U.S.C. 10 (1970). Local 205's first claim is that the arbitrator exceeded his powers within the meaning of 9 U.S.C. 10(d) by going beyond the scope of the collective bargaining agreement between Bell and 205 and considering the certification of Local 516. In Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. American Recording and Broadcasting Ass'n, 414 F.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
192 practice notes
  • Holodnak v. AVCO CORP., AVCO-LYCOMING D., STRATFORD, CONN., Civ. A. No. B-15.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • August 15, 1974
    ...on whether the Act applies to labor arbitration, the Second Circuit is of the view that it does. See Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1974); International Assn. of Machinists v. General Electric Co., 406 F.2d 1046, 1049-1050 (2d Cir. 8 In Margetta v. Pam Pam Corp.......
  • General Warehousemen and Helpers Local 767 v. Standard Brands, Inc., Nos. 75-3797
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • September 15, 1978
    ...363 U.S. 593, 599, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960); Bell Aerospace Co. Division of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, UAW, 2 Cir. 1974, 500 F.2d 921, 923; Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO v. General Electric Co., 9 Cir. 1965, 353 F.2d 302; or where the award conflicted with the de......
  • Lummus Global Amazonas v. Aguaytia Energy Del Peru, No. CIV.A.H-01-495.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • March 27, 2002
    ...the courts vacate those portions of the award and remand. See, e.g., Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, et. al, 500 F.2d 921, 923-24 (2d Cir.1974)(remanding due to ambiguity as to which union was to perform particular task); Coopertex, 1990 WL 6548 at *4 (portion of awar......
  • Locals 2222, 2320-2327, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. New England Tel. and Tel. Co., AFL-CI
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • August 12, 1980
    ...supra, 447 F.Supp. at 392. "The purpose of arbitration is to resolve disputes, not to create new ones." Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, 500 F.2d 921, 924 (2d Cir. 1974). The grievance arbitration procedures, "contracted for by the parties, were never intended to force a grievant into the r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
192 cases
  • Holodnak v. AVCO CORP., AVCO-LYCOMING D., STRATFORD, CONN., Civ. A. No. B-15.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • August 15, 1974
    ...on whether the Act applies to labor arbitration, the Second Circuit is of the view that it does. See Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1974); International Assn. of Machinists v. General Electric Co., 406 F.2d 1046, 1049-1050 (2d Cir. 8 In Margetta v. Pam Pam Corp.......
  • General Warehousemen and Helpers Local 767 v. Standard Brands, Inc., Nos. 75-3797
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • September 15, 1978
    ...363 U.S. 593, 599, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960); Bell Aerospace Co. Division of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, UAW, 2 Cir. 1974, 500 F.2d 921, 923; Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO v. General Electric Co., 9 Cir. 1965, 353 F.2d 302; or where the award conflicted with the de......
  • Lummus Global Amazonas v. Aguaytia Energy Del Peru, No. CIV.A.H-01-495.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas
    • March 27, 2002
    ...the courts vacate those portions of the award and remand. See, e.g., Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, et. al, 500 F.2d 921, 923-24 (2d Cir.1974)(remanding due to ambiguity as to which union was to perform particular task); Coopertex, 1990 WL 6548 at *4 (portion of awar......
  • Locals 2222, 2320-2327, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. New England Tel. and Tel. Co., AFL-CI
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • August 12, 1980
    ...supra, 447 F.Supp. at 392. "The purpose of arbitration is to resolve disputes, not to create new ones." Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, 500 F.2d 921, 924 (2d Cir. 1974). The grievance arbitration procedures, "contracted for by the parties, were never intended to force a grievant into the r......
  • 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