Clark v. Hein-Werner Corp.
| Decision Date | 05 January 1960 |
| Docket Number | AFL-CI,HEIN-WERNER,A |
| Citation | 100 N.W.2d 317,8 Wis.2d 264 |
| Parties | , 45 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2659, 38 Lab.Cas. P 66,093 Henry E. CLARK et al., Respondents, v.CORP., a Wis., corporation, Defendant, International Ass'n of Machinists, Local 1377,ppellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Robert E. Gratz, Milwaukee, Daniel L. Shneidman, Milwaukee, of counsel, for appellant.
Raskin, Zubrensky & Padden, Milwaukee, Max Raskin, Milwaukee, of counsel, for amicus curiae.
The brief of the appellant union, in support of its motion for rehearing, contends that federal labor law controls the instant case and not state law, because of the fact that the employer is substantially engaged in interstate commerce. We find it unnecessary to pass on this contention because several of the authorities relied upon in our opinion are federal cases. The United States supreme court has not yet spoken on the principal point decided. When it does, we can perceive of no reason why the same policy considerations which are discussed in our original opinion, and which caused us to reach the result we did, should not carry equal weight with that court.
The second point advanced by the union in support of its motion for rehearing is that our original decision interferes with the union's rights derived from the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq., to be the exclusive collective bargaining agent for the plaintiff employees in matters affecting their seniority rights. In support of such contention Ford Motor Company v. Huffman, 1953, 345 U.S. 330, 73 S.Ct. 681, 97 L.Ed. 1048 is cited. That case dealt with preferential seniority rights of employees, who had been in military service, arising under a collective bargaining contract negotiated by the union as the collective bargaining agent. The argument now advanced seems to be this: Because the union in the first instance could have negotiated a contract with the employer giving the plaintiff employees unfavorable seniority rights, the union can accomplish the same result in the arbitration proceeding.
We deem the foregoing to be a fallacious argument. Once the rights of employees have become fixed in the collective bargaining contract, the union does not possess the right to barter them away before an arbitrator. The cases of Estes v. Union Terminal Co., 5 Cir., 1937, 89 F.2d 768, and Primakow v. Railway Express Agency, D.C.Wis.1943, 56 F.Supp. 413, deal with rights arising under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney
...733; Lucas Flour Co. v. Local 174, Teamsters, etc., 57 Wash.2d 95, 356 P.2d 1; Clark v. Hein-Werner Corp., 8 Wis.2d 264, 99 N.W.2d 132, 100 N.W.2d 317. But at least two federal courts have expressed the view that their jurisdiction under § 301(a) might be exclusive. Association of Westingho......
-
Donnelly v. United Fruit Co.
...the collective bargaining contract. Clark v. Hein-Werner Corp., 8 Wis.2d 264, 99 N.W.2d 132 (Sup.Ct.1959), rehearing denied 8 Wis.2d 264, 100 N.W.2d 317 (Sup.Ct.1960), cert. denied Local 1377 of International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO v. Hein-Werner Corp., 362 U.S. 962, 80 S.Ct. 87......
-
593 Local 174, Teamsters Chaukfeurs, Warehousemen Helpers of America v. Lucas Flour Company
...v. Powder Power Tool Corp., 220 Or. 102, 106—107, 348 P.2d 1112, 1114; Clark v. Hein-Werner Corp., 8 Wis.2d 264, 277, 99 N.W.2d 132, 100 N.W.2d 317, 318 (on motion for rehearing). It bears noting, however, that these courts and others, e.g., Connecticut Co. v. Division 425, etc., Street, El......
-
Belk v. Allied Aviation Service Co. of New Jersey, Inc.
...Firemen, 323 U.S. 210, 65 S.Ct. 235, 89 L.Ed. 187 (1944). See, also, Clark v. Hein-Warner Corp., 8 Wis.2d 264, 268, 99 N.W.2d 132, 100 N.W.2d 317 (1959). However, the Union is allowed a certain measure of discretion in bargaining, Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 73 S. Ct. 681, 97 L......