Capecci v. Joseph Capecci, Inc.

• Decision Date: 17 March 1958
• Citation: Capecci v. Joseph Capecci, Inc., 392 Pa. 32, 139 A.2d 563 (Pa. 1958)
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Parties: Anthony CAPECCI, Appellant, v. JOSEPH CAPECCI, Inc.

Page 563

139 A.2d 563

392 Pa. 32

Anthony CAPECCI, Appellant, v. JOSEPH CAPECCI, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 17, 1958.

The opinion of Judge Reimel follows:

This matter comes before the Court on defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Plaintiff, ex-employee, instituted this action against defendant, ex-employer, as third party beneficiary of a contract executed by the defendant and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union No. 470, of which the plaintiff was a member. The contract was a collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiff alleged his discharge in violation of this agreement and claimed damages as a result of loss of earnings, loss of seniority rights and loss of other benefits. Defendant filed an answer and new matter wherein it is alleged that the plaintiff was discharged because of disloyalty, insubordination, inefficiency and incompetency. It further alleged that an impartial arbitrator was designated and a hearing was held. The arbitrator found that the discharge of the plaintiff was justified and that he was not entitled to reinstatement. Plaintiff filed a reply wherein it is alleged that the grievance and arbitration procedure stipulated in the collective bargaining agreement was not followed and that the plaintiff was not given a proper opportunity to present his position citing reasons therefor. Defendant then filed its motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Defendant's business was conducted as a 'union shop' and Local Union No. 470, a local affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, was the 'sole representative for collective bargaining purposes for all the employees in certain enumerated classifications'. Plaintiff was a member of the Union and was included in the enumerated classifications. As an incident of membership in a union an employee designates his union as his representative to act for him as his agent in collective bargaining with his employer and in all matters pertaining to his employment: Povey v. Midvale Co., 175 Pa.Super. 395, 105 A.2d 172. Therefore, plaintiff was bound by the action of the Union as his agent in negotiating the collective bargaining agreement with his employer.

Under the terms of the agreement, 'any grievance or dispute concerning the interpretation or execution of this agreement shall be settled in the following manner', which consists of summary procedures culminating in arbitration. The arbitration procedure provides for a board of five arbitrators; two to be chosen by the defendant, two to be chosen by the Union and a fifth to be chosen by the four arbitrators.

Plaintiff questioned the justification for his discharge and submitted this question to an impartial arbitrator who rendered a decision adverse to the plaintiff which he herein seeks to circumvent or set aside and have the question redetermined.

Where the parties by contract contemplate the settlement of disputes by arbitration, every reasonable intendment will be made in favor of the agreement: Povey v. Midvale Co., supra. The public policy of this State is to give effect to arbitration agreements: Schroeder Bros., Inc. v. Sabelli, 156 Pa.Super. 267, 40 A.2d 170. When an arbitration agreement is executed the arbitrator becomes...