Brampton Woolen Co. v. Local Union
| Decision Date | 03 November 1948 |
| Parties | BRAMPTON WOOLEN CO. v. LOCAL UNION 112 et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Sullivan County; Wheeler, Judge.
Bill in equity by Brampton Woolen Company against Local Union 112 and another to enjoin defendants from proceeding with arbitration of allegedly non-arbitrable issues and for a judicial determination that plaintiff is not obligated under a collective bargaining contract to arbitrate. From an order overruling defendants' demurrer after the issuance of a temporary injunction, defendants excepted and the case was transferred to the Supreme Court.
Injunction dissolved and bill dismissed.
Bill in equity, for injunctive relief against a labor union and others to prevent the union from proceeding with arbitration of allegedly non-arbitrable disputes and for a judicial determination that the plaintiff is not obligated under a collective bargaining contract to arbitrate the disputes involved. After the issuance of a temporary injunction, ex parte, the defendants filed a demurrer, to the overruling of which they excepted, and the case was transferred. During the oral arguments before this court counsel agreed to waive certain claims and to submit only the questions of whether the demurrer was properly overruled and whether the dispute about vacation pay was arbitrable under the contract.
The agreement, which is a part of the reserved case, is signed by the negotiating committee and general representative of the union and the agent of the plaintiff company. It contains fifteen articles under separate headings, certain significant ones being: Article III. ‘Minimum Wages', Article IV, ‘Vacations and Vacation Pay’ and Article VI, ‘Adjustment of Grievances', covering arbitration. Further facts appear in the opinion. Transferred by Wheeler, J. McLane, Davis, Carleton & Graf, and Stanley M. Brown, all of Manchester, for plaintiff.
Jacob M. Shulins, of Newport, for defendants.
The court has jurisdiction to determine whether the dispute is arbitrable. Belding Hemingway Company v. Wholesale & Warehouse Workers' Union, Local 65, C.I.O., 295 N.Y. 541, 68 N.E.2d 681; International Association of Machinists, Dist. No. 15, Local No. 402 v. Cutler-Hammer, Inc., 297 N.Y. 519, 74 N.E.2d 464; see also Burleigh v. Ford, 59 N.H. 536, 539. Furthermore the plaintiff's legal remedy is clearly inadequate, and the demurrer was properly overruled. It was faced with a choice of refusing to arbitrate and thereby perhaps breaking the contract which would have freed the defendants from their no-strike obligation, or by participating in arbitration it might have been held to have waived its claim that the disputes were not arbitrable (Restatement, Contracts, § 445, § 550, Com. a.) and thereby have been bound by the award according to the provisions of the contract. See Straw v. Truesdale, 59 N.H. 109. Therefore there was no error in the issuance of an injunction staying interlocutory proceedings until the parties rights could be finally determined. See American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Rush, 88 N.H. 383, 384, 190 A. 432; American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Central Garage, 86 N.H. 362, 364, 169 A. 121.
The answer to the remaining question before us depends on whether vacation pay should be considered as wages which are admittedly a subject for arbitration under Article VI of the collective bargaining agreement. It is fundamental in this jurisdiction that the interpretation of a written contract for this court (Pettee v. Omega Chapter of Alpha Gamma Pho, 86 N.H. 419, 170 A. 1, 171 A. 441; Irwin v. Blain, 95 N.H. 20, 58 A.2d 618 and cases cited)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Story
...duty of the Trial Court, and not of the jury, to determine the meaning of actual cost in this written agreement. Brampton Woolen Co. v. Local Union 112, 95 N.H. 255, 61 A.2d 796. However the question was submitted to the jury at the respondents' request as obviously they then considered thi......
-
Griswold v. Heat Inc.
...by the agreement is an important factor in determining the sense of the words used therein by these parties. Brampton Woolen Co. v. Local Union, 95 N.H. 255, 257, 61 A.2d 796. The course of conduct of the parties for the first year following their agreement is further evidence 'of their com......
-
Univ. Sys. of N.H. Bd. of Trs. v. Dorfsman
...We have previously recognized that the superior court has jurisdiction to review arbitral awards. See, e.g., Brampton Woolen Co. v. Local Union, 95 N.H. 255, 256, 61 A.2d 796 (1948) (concluding that court had jurisdiction to determine whether a dispute was arbitrable); Ford v. Burleigh, 60 ......
-
J. Dunn & Sons, Inc. v. Paragon Homes of New England, Inc.
...and elsewhere that the scope of an arbitration clause in a contract presents a question of law for the court. Brampton Woolen Co. v. Local Union 112, 95 N.H. 252, 256, 61 A.2d 796; Kantrowitz v. Perlman, 156 Conn. 224, 240 A.2d 891, 893 (Conn.1968); Old Dutch Farms, Inc. v. Milk Drivers & D......