Boston Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. INSURANCE AGENTS'INT. UN., 5362.

• Decision Date: 24 July 1958
• Docket Number: No. 5362.,5362.
• Citation: 258 F.2d 516
• Parties: BOSTON MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. INSURANCE AGENTS' INTERNATIONAL UNION (AFL-CIO), Defendant, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

258 F.2d 516 (1958)

BOSTON MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. INSURANCE AGENTS' INTERNATIONAL UNION (AFL-CIO), Defendant, Appellee.

No. 5362.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

Heard June 5, 1958.

Decided July 24, 1958.

Richard J. Walsh, Boston, Mass., with whom Francis E. Silva, Jr., and Warner, Stackpole, Stetson & Bradlee, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellant.

Isaac N. Groner, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.

MAGRUDER, Chief Judge.

This is another appeal involving § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185, as applied to provisions of a collective bargaining agreement relating to arbitration.

The subject matter bristles with difficulties, some of which we indicated in our opinion in Local No. 149, etc. v. General Electric Co., 1957, 250 F.2d 922. An application for a writ of certiorari was denied in that case. 1958, 356 U.S. 938, 78 S.Ct. 780, 2 L.Ed.2d 813. Consequently, our decision there has become the law of the First Circuit. We referred to the view held in responsible quarters that the interests of effective arbitration would best be served by leaving to the arbitrator, in the first instance, the question of arbitrability. We thought that considerations of this sort might properly persuade the parties to draw the terms of submission in broad language. But we further pointed out that when one of the parties needs the aid of a court of equity, under § 301, and asks the court for a decree of specific performance of a contract to arbitrate, the court, before rendering such a decree, has an inescapable obligation to determine as a preliminary matter whether the defendant did contract to refer the issue to arbitration. We have no disposition to whittle away our holding in Local No. 149, etc. v. General Electric Co. Of course, practical considerations as to what would best promote effective labor arbitration might lead the court, in construing ambiguous language, to adopt an interpretation giving a broad scope to the arbitrator's function. In such a case, however, it is the court which would be determining as a preliminary matter whether the parties had contracted to refer the particular issue to arbitration.

It seems to us that in the case at bar the district court did not sufficiently adhere to the teaching of Local No. 149, etc. v. General Electric Co.

The complaint in this case was filed by Boston Mutual Life Insurance Co., an employer, seeking a declaratory judgment under § 301 to the effect that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to arbitrate the grievance of one Herbert Jacobson arising out of his discharge by the Company, and seeking an injunction permanently enjoining the Union defendant from proceeding further in any such arbitration. As part of its answer, the Union filed a counter-claim under § 301 alleging that it had complied with each and every term of the contract with respect to the arbitration of the "Jacobson termination grievance" and asking a declaration that enforcement of the collective bargaining agreement requires "that the American Arbitration Association proceed with its administration and processing of the arbitration of the Jacobson termination grievance * * * and that said arbitration case be heard in accordance with the applicable Association Rules and proceed to an award", and asking further for a decree requiring the Employer to comply promptly and faithfully with the award which shall be entered in said arbitration case, and to take any other action required by the contract for the processing and completion of this arbitration case in accordance with said contract.

The Employer is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of business in Boston. The defendant named in the complaint is the Insurance Agents' International Union (AFL-CIO), a labor organization which represents employees in an industry affecting commerce, as defined in the Act. The Union's principal office is located in Washington, D. C., though its Local 243, which is involved here, has its offices in Cambridge, Mass.

On January 31, 1956, the Employer and the Union executed a collective bargaining agreement effective May 20, 1955, to May 20, 1957, which was subsequently extended to June 20, 1957. This agreement contains a typical grievance procedure (Art. XVIII) which, if unsuccessfully pursued, may be followed by arbitration (Art. XIX). The pertinent provisions of the agreement read as follows:

"Article II

"Purpose and Intent of the Parties

"The purpose of the Employer and the Union in entering into this Labor contract is to set forth their agreement on compensation, hours, and working conditions, and other conditions of employment, to provide orderly collective bargaining relations between the Employer and the Union, to secure a prompt and fair disposition of grievances, to eliminate interruptions of work and interference with the efficient operation of the Employer\'s business, and to promote the mutual interests of the Employer, its policyholders and the Agents."

"Article XVIII

"Grievances

"The Employer agrees that the Union may have a Relations Committee composed of not more than three (3) agents in each of the District Offices of the Employer. The Employer further agrees that there shall be a Company-Wide Relations Committee composed of not more than five (5) persons designated by the Union. Grievances within the ordinary jurisdiction of the District Manager shall be subject to discussion in the first instance between the District Manager of the District Office of the Employer and the Relations Committee of said District Office. Prior to any discussion, such grievances shall be prepared in writing on forms furnished by the Union in quintuple, one for the Home Office of the Company, one for the District Manager, one for the District Relations Committee, one for the local Union, and one for the Insurance Agent\'s International Union in Washington, D. C. Any grievance must be presented in writing within twenty-five (25) working days of the event upon which it is based. Any Home Office suspension or termination shall be brought to the attention of the local Union president in writing within two (2) days of Home Office receipt of notification or sooner if possible of such suspension or termination. The District Manager will, within two (2) working days of the meeting with the District Relations Committee, render a decision in writing in quintuple, with copies to the parties as above stated. In the event that any grievance is not settled between the District Office Relations Committee and the District Manager of that office, said Relations Committee shall have the right to file with the Employer in writing within seven (7) days a pertinent statement of the dispute and within seven (7) days of the presentation of such matter to the Employer, the Director of Agencies, after meeting with the Company-Wide Relations Committee if that is deemed advisable shall render a decision on the grievance and notify the Relations Committee submitting such grievance, as well as the local Union president, of his decision. If the Union is dissatisfied with the decision of the Director of Agencies on the grievance, it shall become a subject of discussion between an Employer\'s Committee of not less than three and the Company-Wide Relations Committee on notice in writing to the Employer within ten (10) days of the decision of the Director of Agencies. Said meeting shall take place within seven (7) days of such notice.

"The Employer agrees that the Company-Wide Relations Committee may take up any matter with the Director of Agencies, in the first instance, which does not fall within the ordinary jurisdiction of the District Managers.

"The Employer agrees that an international officer of the Union may participate in any discussion between the Employer and the Company-Wide Relations Committee.

"A duly authorized representative of the Union shall at all reasonable times and places have access to the District Manager and may have with him at such time the Office Relations Committee. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall restrict in any way the right of a member of the collective bargaining unit to consult his District Manager on any matter.

Nothing herein contained shall abridge the right of the District Manager or Staff Manager to consult with any agent on Company business in his office in the regular course of business of such District Office.

"Article XIX

"Arbitration

"No grievance shall be subject to arbitration unless it involves:

"(a) A dispute about the interpretation or application of any provision of this Agreement or the application of any rule or regulation of the Employer now or hereafter in force.

"(b) The termination, suspension, or disciplinary action against any senior agent.

"In the event that the Company-Wide Relations Committee and the Employer shall fail to reach an agreement on any grievance, either the Employer or the Union may refer said matter to an arbitration board by serving written demand for the same upon the other party. Such demand must be made within fifteen (15) working days after mailing the decision resulting from the meeting of the Employer and the Company-Wide Relations Committee at which the disagreement occurred. In said demand the party demanding arbitration shall name a representative of such party to act on the Arbitration Board. Within five (5) days thereafter

...