Cone v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | FOX; MOORE, P. J., and McCOMB |
| Citation | 129 Cal.App.2d 558,277 P.2d 464 |
| Parties | Gladys S. CONE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 20325. |
| Decision Date | 15 December 1954 |
Page 464
v.
UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent.
Page 465
[129 Cal.App.2d 559] Thomas D. Griffin, Long Beach, for appellant.
L. A. Gibbons, Douglas C. Gregg, A. Andrew Hauk, Sheldon C. Houts, Los Angeles, Ball, Hunt & Hart, Long Beach, for respondent.
FOX, Justice.
This is an appeal by plaintiff from a summary judgment in favor of the defendant Union Oil Company.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for the alleged violation by the defendant of a collective bargaining agreement between the Company and Local No. 128, Oil Workers International Union, C.I.O. Plaintiff claims that the Company breached certain agreements settling a strike that began in September, 1948, and ended on January 10, 1949. She alleges that the Company's breach consists of failing to employ her in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement and of employing others having less seniority than she had in job openings for which she could qualify. Plaintiff bases her suit on Exhibit A to the complaint, which is the strike settlement agreement with an addendum thereto. Plaintiff prays for wages allegedly accrued from January 10, 1949, to the date of filing her complaint and in addition for prospective loss of wages.
The Company, in its answer, denies liability and alleges that it has scrupulously abided by all the terms and conditions [129 Cal.App.2d 560] of the strike settlement. The Company also alleges that Exhibit A to plaintiff's complaint does not contain all of the addenda
Page 466
which were a part of the strike settlement agreement of January 10, 1949. The Company also pleads that the failure of the plaintiff to perform certain conditions precedent in the strike settlement agreement and addenda bars the maintenance of this action.Defendant moved for summary judgment. In support of the motion it submitted the affidavit of Kenneth E. Kingman, its vice president, who conducted all negotiations with the Union at all times involved herein. The Kingman affidavit discloses that:
1. The collective bargaining agreement upon which plaintiff seeks recovery consists of the strike settlement agreement dated January 9, 1949 (effective January 10th), and three separate addenda thereto, all of which are attached as exhibits to the affidavit.
2. By agreement between the Union, of which plaintiff was a member and which was authorized to represent her as her collective bargaining agent, and the Company the grievance procedures set up in Article VII of the prior collective bargaining agreement between the parties dated March 4, 1946, were incorporated in the strike settlement agreement for use in settling disputes.
3. These grievance procedures consisted of seven detailed and specific steps, from initiation of the grievance to final arbitration in the event settlement of the dispute should not be effected or decision rendered in the intermediate steps.
4. Plaintiff initiated grievance No. 13, raising the identical matters set forth in her complaint herein, and the grievance procedure was pursued through the first six steps.
5. Step seven of the grievance procedure provided as follows: 'If the grievance is not decided by the procedure in paragraph 6 above, the representatives above mentioned shall stipulate the issues to be decided by an arbiter. The two representatives shall select a third person agreeable to both parties to decide the dispute. Should the two representatives fail to agree on a third party within seven (7) days then either party shall have the right to request the conciliation service of the U. S. Department of Labor to assign a third party to act as arbiter. The decision of the arbiter shall be final and binding upon both the Company and the Union. In no case shall the decision of an arbiter change or modify the terms of this agreement. The expense and compensation of the arbiter shall be shared equally by the Company and the Union.'
6. Although the grievance was not settled or decided in the first six steps, neither plaintiff nor the Union on her behalf requested the selection of a third arbiter to decide the dispute, nor did plaintiff or the Union on her behalf request the conciliation service of the U. S. Department of Labor to assign a third party to act as arbiter.
7. Plaintiff, and the Union on her behalf, failed and neglected to exhaust the grievance procedures incorporated in the strike settlement agreement, and particularly those contained in said Article VII of the 1946 collective bargaining agreement, in that plaintiff, and the Union on her behalf, failed and neglected to pursue or utilize the seventh step in these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKenna v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., Case No. CV F 12–0849 LJO GSA.
...the mode of redress.” Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U.S. 650, 652, 85 S.Ct. 614, 13 L.Ed.2d 580 (1965). In Cone v. Union Oil Co., 129 Cal.App.2d 558, 563–564, 277 P.2d 464 (1954), the California Court of Appeal explained: It is the general rule that a party to a collective bargaining ......
-
Cal. Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Bd. of Salinas City Elementary Sch. Dist., No. H033788.
...Council of Teamsters No. 42 (1971) 4 Cal.3d 888, 894, 95 Cal.Rptr. 53, 484 P.2d 1397 ( Rounds ), quoting Cone v. Union Oil Co. (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 558, 563-564, 277 P.2d 464 ( Cone ).) "Such procedures, which have been worked out and adopted by the parties themselves, must be pursued......
-
Dixon v. Grace Lines, Inc.
...were within his personal knowledge. (Cf.: Schessler v. Keck, 138 Cal.App.2d 663, 670, 292 P.2d 314 (1956); Cone v. Union Oil Co., 129 Cal.App.2d 558, 564, 277 P.2d 464 Page 605 Incorporated into the declaration by reference was a letter, apparently from a shipping firm in South Vietnam, sig......
-
Whitney's At for Beach v. Superior Court
...170 Cal.App.2d 337, 339, 338 P.2d 912; Barry v. Rodgers (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 340, 342, 296 P.2d 898; and Cone v. Union Oil Co. (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 558, 562, 277 P.2d In Stationers Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (1965), 62 Cal.2d 412, 42 Cal.Rptr. 449, 398 P.2d 785, where the court f......
-
McKenna v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., Case No. CV F 12–0849 LJO GSA.
...the mode of redress.” Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U.S. 650, 652, 85 S.Ct. 614, 13 L.Ed.2d 580 (1965). In Cone v. Union Oil Co., 129 Cal.App.2d 558, 563–564, 277 P.2d 464 (1954), the California Court of Appeal explained: It is the general rule that a party to a collective bargaining ......
-
Cal. Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Bd. of Salinas City Elementary Sch. Dist., No. H033788.
...Council of Teamsters No. 42 (1971) 4 Cal.3d 888, 894, 95 Cal.Rptr. 53, 484 P.2d 1397 ( Rounds ), quoting Cone v. Union Oil Co. (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 558, 563-564, 277 P.2d 464 ( Cone ).) "Such procedures, which have been worked out and adopted by the parties themselves, must be pursued to t......
-
Dixon v. Grace Lines, Inc.
...were within his personal knowledge. (Cf.: Schessler v. Keck, 138 Cal.App.2d 663, 670, 292 P.2d 314 (1956); Cone v. Union Oil Co., 129 Cal.App.2d 558, 564, 277 P.2d 464 Page 605 Incorporated into the declaration by reference was a letter, apparently from a shipping firm in South Vietnam, sig......
-
Whitney's At for Beach v. Superior Court
...170 Cal.App.2d 337, 339, 338 P.2d 912; Barry v. Rodgers (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 340, 342, 296 P.2d 898; and Cone v. Union Oil Co. (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 558, 562, 277 P.2d In Stationers Corp. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (1965), 62 Cal.2d 412, 42 Cal.Rptr. 449, 398 P.2d 785, where the court found......