O'Dell v. International Paper Co.
| Citation | 262 So.2d 101 |
| Decision Date | 24 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 11839,11839 |
| Parties | 80 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3012, 69 Lab.Cas. P 12,926 Robert E. O'DELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US) |
Stewart & Stewart, by Dan W. Stewart, III, Minden, Madison, Files, Garrett, Brandon & Hamaker, by H. Flood Madison, Jr., Monroe, for defendant-appellant.
Henry G. Hobbs, Minden, Paul E. Newell, Haynesville, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BOLIN, HEARD and HALL, JJ.
While employed by International Paper Company, Robert E. O'Dell was injured during the course and scope of his employment, for which he was and is being paid benefits due him under the Louisiana Workmen's Compensation Statute. This suit was instituted to compel defendant to pay plaintiff an additional sum of $19.00 weekly during the period of his disability which plaintiff contends is due him under an agreement between defendant and plaintiff's union. Defendant filed an exception of prematurity asserting plaintiff had not exhausted the arbitration remedies provided by the labor agreement. For written reasons the exception of prematurity was overruled by the lower court and the case went to trial on the merits. After trial a judgment was rendered in favor of O'Dell ordering defendant to pay him the additional $19.00 per week during the period of his disability. Defendant appeals on the merits and specifically urges that plaintiff's exclusive remedy is the grievance procedure established in the labor agreement. For reasons hereinafter stated, we hold this is plaintiff's exclusive remedy and reject his demands.
Defendant admitted plaintiff was totally and permanently disabled because of an injury sustained while employed by defendant on May 13, 1964. Defendant immediately began paying plaintiff $35.00 per week, the maximum amount due under the compensation statute at that time. International also admits paying plaintiff the supplemental sum of $19.00 per week from the date of the accident until April 10, 1965.
The evidence disclosed that during the 1954 negotiations between defendant and plaintiff's union, defendant agreed to supplement the workmen's compensation payments made to employees under certain circumstances. Defendant had obtained a group insurance plan for sickness and non-occupational accidents which paid benefits greater than the maximum due under workmen's compensation to an employee unable to work because of some disability connected with his employment. The minutes of the negotiations conducted July 13--14, 1954, show that the third and fourth proposals submitted by the union provided for an increase in the maximum benefits under the sickness and non-occupational accident insurance plan and for the defendant to pay the difference between workmen's compensation and the amount paid under the group insurance plan. The negotiators for defendant agreed:
The benefits under the group insurance plan were increased until, at the time of his injury in 1964, plaintiff would have been entitled to a payment of $54.00 per week had he been unable to work because of sickness or non-occupational injury. This is the basis of the supplemental payment of $19.00 weekly.
We shall first consider whether the lower court was correct in ruling that arbitration was not plaintiff's exclusive remedy.
Plaintiff did not commence this action until October 6, 1967. At that time defendant urged that the suit was premature because plaintiff had not exhausted all of his remedies under the labor contract. The record discloses that after defendant filed the exception of prematurity plaintiff's union filed a complaint form alleging plaintiff was being unfairly treated in this matter. It is clear plaintiff's union did not take the complaint to arbitration. Defendant contended in an amended answer that under the labor agreement the complaint is considered settled since the grievance procedure was not pursued to arbitration within the time allowed.
The record includes two labor agreements entered into by defendant and plaintiff's union. One is for the contract year 1954--55 and was obviously reached as a result of the July 1954 negotiations. The second is for the contract years 1963--65 and was in effect at the time plaintiff was injured and at the time defendant terminated the supplemental payments.
The pertinent portion of each labor agreement, Section VII, 'Adjustment of Complaints', provides:
'Complaints arising in any department of a plant covered by this Agreement shall be handled in the following manner: . . .'
A detailed procedure for the handling of grievances is outlined, culminating in the submission of the complaint to an Arbitrator whose decision is final and binding.
Section VII provides in part as follows:
Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:4201 provides for the validity of arbitration agreements. Wright v. Round the Corner Restaurants of Louisiana, Inc., et al., 252 So.2d 341, 346 (La.App.4th Cir. 1971) recognized...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- O'Dell v. International Paper Co.
-
Affetto v. TRW, Inc.
...of the statute must serve as the primary guide to its interpretation." 369 N.Y.S.2d at 868, 48 A.D.2d 341. O'Dell v. International Paper Company, 262 So.2d 101 (La.App.1972), did not involve interpretation of a statute. A collective bargaining agreement required arbitration of disputes exce......
-
Tullis v. Vose
......8 See, for example, O'Dell v. International...8 See, for example, O'Dell v. International Paper......
- O'Dell v. International Paper Co.