Collingswood Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, No. C--177
| Court | Superior Court of New Jersey |
| Writing for the Court | FREUND |
| Citation | 28 N.J.Super. 605,101 A.2d 372 |
| Parties | COLLINGSWOOD HOSIERY MILLS, Inc. v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS. . Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | No. C--177 |
| Decision Date | 04 December 1953 |
Page 605
v.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS.
Chancery Division.
Page 607
[101 A.2d 373] S. Herman Cohen, Bloomfield, for plaintiff.
Samuel L. Rothbard and Abraham L. Friedman, Newark, for defendant (Rothbard, Harris & Oxfeld, Newark, attorneys).
FREUND, J.S.C.
In this proceeding the plaintiff moves to vacate, and the defendant to confirm, an award made by an arbitrator under a collective bargaining agreement between the plaintiff as employer and the defendant union on behalf of the employees. There was no dispute of fact. The sole issue was construction of the agreement--whether plaintiff's employees are entitled to vacation pay as though they had been in the employ of the plaintiff for five years or more.
On or about August 1, 1950 the plaintiff purchased a hosiery mill, formerly owned by Haddon Hosiery Mills Corporation, and shortly thereafter entered into an agreement with Hosiery Workers Association of South Jersey, an independent union. The agreement expressly provided that for the purpose of vacation benefits, employees were to be given credit for the time they had been employed by the previous operator of the plant. Thus, two weeks' vacation would be given to employees who 'have five years or more combined and continuous service credit with the Employer and Haddon Hosiery Mills Corp.'
On September 30, 1952 the plaintiff entered into a contract with another union, the defendant, for a term of two years, automatically renewable for successive two year terms unless terminated upon 60 days' notice. This contract, however, omitted any provision for credit for employment by the previous operator of the plant. The pertinent second reads as follows:
'Each employee who is on the payroll of the Employer on June first of the year in which the vacation falls and who on that date has been on the payroll of the Employer continuously for a period of five years or more shall be eligible for two weeks' vacation with pay. * * *'
[101 A.2d 374] Certain employees claimed two weeks' vacation on the ground that they had been employed at the plant for more than five years. The plaintiff, however, refused to pay because the company had not been in existence and no employee had been on its payroll for five years, and the agreement did not provide for credit for previous employment at the plant.
Page 609
The agreement provided for arbitration of disputes before a designated impartial chairman, and the matter was submitted to him. His jurisdiction is thus defined:
'Any and all matters of dispute, difference, disagreement or controversy of any kind or character, between the union and the employer, involving or relating to wages, rates, hours, conditions of work, and the relations between the parties, arising during the term of this agreement or any renewal thereof, including but not limited to the interpretation, construction or application of the terms of this agreement, shall be submitted to the impartial chairman for final and binding decision by him. It is understood and agreed, however, that the Impartial Chairman shall not have power to alter, modify or change this agreement or any of the terms or provisions thereof, and the Union and Employer agree to be bound by and abide by the decisions of the Impartial Chairman.'
After hearings, the chairman made an award in favor of the employees. In a formal opinion he stated the issues and the arguments of the parties, and concluded: 'I think we must read the contract provision as a whole in accordance with the well established legal rule of contract interpretation to determine what was the actual intent of the parties,' that the pertinent section 'read as a whole, indicates an intention to give two weeks of vacation or vacation pay during the term of this contract * * * that the employees and the employer intended that employees who had been employed in this plant for a total period of five years, including service with preceding operators of the plant, would get a second week of vacation.'
On this motion the issues as I perceive them are: was the award justified under the contract, what is the effect of submission to arbitration and is the award sustainable?
That parties to a contract may agree that all controversies growing out of it shall be submitted to arbitration and that the law favors such procedure is well settled.
'A submission to arbitration is essentially a contract. * * * The authority of the arbitrators...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Local 719, American Bakery & C. Wkrs. v. National Biscuit Co., No. 15969.
...aff'd per curiam, 344 F.2d 330 (3 Cir. 1965). Contra, Collingswood Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, 28 N.J.Super. 605, 101 A.2d 372 (Ch.Div.1953), rev'd on other grounds, 31 N.J.Super. 466, 107 A.2d 43 6 Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). 7 Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 2......
-
Independent Oil Workers at Paulsboro v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., No. C--1167
...Labor v. American Can Co., 28 N.J.Super. 306, 100 A.2d 693 (App.Div.1953); Collingswood Hosiery Mills v. American Fed. Hosiery Wkrs., 28 N.J.Super. 605, 101 A.2d 372 (Ch.Div.1953), both as to legal and factual issues. Milk Drivers & Dairy Employees, Local 680 v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 39 N.J.S......
-
New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co. v. Franklin
...Underwriters Ins. Co., 151 N.J.Super. 403, 411, 376 A.2d 1308 (App.Div.1977); Collingswood Hosiery Mills v. Amer. Fed. Hosiery Wkrs., 28 N.J.Super. 605, 101 A.2d 372 (Ch.Div.1953), rev'd on other grounds 31 N.J.Super. 466, 107 A.2d 43 (App.Div.1954); Migneault v. United Services Automobile ......
-
Azcon Const. Co., Inc. v. Golden Hills Resort, Inc., No. 18057
...agreement did not provide for arbitration of that claim. Collingswood Hosiery Mills Inc. v. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, 28 N.J.Super. 605, 101 A.2d 372, rev'd on other grounds, 31 N.J.Super. 466, 107 A.2d 43 (1953); National Cash Register Co. v. Wilson, 8 N.Y.2d Page 633 377, 20......
-
Local 719, American Bakery & C. Wkrs. v. National Biscuit Co., No. 15969.
...aff'd per curiam, 344 F.2d 330 (3 Cir. 1965). Contra, Collingswood Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, 28 N.J.Super. 605, 101 A.2d 372 (Ch.Div.1953), rev'd on other grounds, 31 N.J.Super. 466, 107 A.2d 43 6 Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). 7 Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 2......
-
Independent Oil Workers at Paulsboro v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., No. C--1167
...Labor v. American Can Co., 28 N.J.Super. 306, 100 A.2d 693 (App.Div.1953); Collingswood Hosiery Mills v. American Fed. Hosiery Wkrs., 28 N.J.Super. 605, 101 A.2d 372 (Ch.Div.1953), both as to legal and factual issues. Milk Drivers & Dairy Employees, Local 680 v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 39 N.J.S......
-
New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co. v. Franklin
...Underwriters Ins. Co., 151 N.J.Super. 403, 411, 376 A.2d 1308 (App.Div.1977); Collingswood Hosiery Mills v. Amer. Fed. Hosiery Wkrs., 28 N.J.Super. 605, 101 A.2d 372 (Ch.Div.1953), rev'd on other grounds 31 N.J.Super. 466, 107 A.2d 43 (App.Div.1954); Migneault v. United Services Automobile ......
-
Azcon Const. Co., Inc. v. Golden Hills Resort, Inc., No. 18057
...agreement did not provide for arbitration of that claim. Collingswood Hosiery Mills Inc. v. American Federation of Hosiery Workers, 28 N.J.Super. 605, 101 A.2d 372, rev'd on other grounds, 31 N.J.Super. 466, 107 A.2d 43 (1953); National Cash Register Co. v. Wilson, 8 N.Y.2d Page 633 377, 20......