DRAKE BAKERIES INCORPORATED v. LOCAL 50, AMERICAN BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL, AFL-CIO

Decision Date04 May 1960
Citation196 F. Supp. 148
PartiesDRAKE BAKERIES INCORPORATED v. LOCAL 50, AMERICAN BAKERY & CONFECTIONERY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL, AFL-CIO, and Louis Genuth, Secy. Treas. etc.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Weil, Gotshal & Manges, New York City, for plaintiff (Robert Abelow, New York City, of counsel).

O'Dwyer & Bernstien, New York City, for defendant (Howard N. Meyer, New York City, of counsel).

RYAN, Chief Judge.

On January 4, 1960, the plaintiff Drake Bakeries, Incorporated, instituted this suit to recover damages for an alleged breach of the "no-strike provision" of a collective bargaining agreement, pursuant to Section 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185.

Prior to interposing an answer to the complaint, defendant moves this Court, under Section 3 of the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.A. § 3, for a stay of trial pending an arbitration proceeding in accordance with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. That the Court has jurisdiction and power to enforce the arbitration clause of this contract is established now by Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, 1957, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 912, 923, 1 L.Ed.2d 972.

The basic grounds upon which plaintiff opposes this application may briefly be summarized as follows: (1) The arbitration provision of the agreement is at best permissive and not mandatory; (2) The action of the union in striking in the face of the no-strike clause (Art. VII of the agreement) acted as a waiver of its rights under the grievance and arbitration provisions; (3) By failure to proceed to arbitration the defendants expressly waived their arbitration rights.

We find no merit in these contentions.

1. A reading of the provisions governing arbitration (Articles 5 and 6) shows that all complaints, disputes or grievances shall be submitted to arbitration. We find nothing permissive there and hold that this dispute is to be arbitrated.

2. Plaintiff next contends that, even if arbitration be mandatory, by violating one clause of the agreement defendants waived their rights under another clause (arbitration). We can find no logical basis for this argument, since if this premise were sustained, every violation of a collective bargaining agreement would act as a waiver of the violating party's right to arbitration, and this would destroy all arbitration agreements which are looked upon with great favor. Markel Electric Products, Inc., v. United Electrical, Radio & Machine...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • McKiernan v. Amento
    • United States
    • Connecticut Superior Court
    • October 2, 2003
    ... ... Waterbury Republican-American, Inc. , 188 Conn. 107, 112, 448 A.2d 1317 (1982) ... ...
  • Drake Bakeries Inc. v. LOCAL 50, AMERICAN BAKERY & C. WKRS.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • September 12, 1961
    ...banc. Judges Clark, Waterman and Smith vote to affirm the order of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, reported at 196 F.Supp. 148. They point to the three recent decisions of the Supreme Court in United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 1960, 3......
  • North Allegheny J. Sch. Sys. v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH, ETC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • June 30, 1961

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT