Fall v. Copperweld Specialty Steel Co., Civ. A. No. C 74-75 Y.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1974
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. C 74-75 Y.
• Citation: 380 F. Supp. 1277
• Parties: Adam A. FALL et al., Plaintiffs, v. COPPERWELD SPECIALTY STEEL CO. and United Steel Workers of America Local Union No. 2243, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

380 F. Supp. 1277

Adam A. FALL et al., Plaintiffs, v. COPPERWELD SPECIALTY STEEL CO. and United Steel Workers of America Local Union No. 2243, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. C 74-75 Y.

United States District Court, N. D. Ohio, E. D.

June 25, 1974.

Clifford L. Phillips, Warren, Ohio, for plaintiffs.

Daniel P. Thomas, Thomas C. B. Letson, Warren, Ohio, for defendants.

ORDER

CONTIE, District Judge.

Plaintiffs bring this action, seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction against the defendants from resubmitting the issue of plaintiffs' grievances again to arbitration, seeking further that this Court determine that the arbitrator's award, introduced as Exhibit C at the hearing of June 4, 1974, is enforceable by specific performance of the collective bargaining agreement between the defendants for the plaintiffs' benefit, seeking to have this Court order the defendant company to carry out its promise to abide by the decision and the award of the arbitrator, seeking that this Court award plaintiffs interest as prescribed by law on the wages due plaintiffs, seeking that this Court award plaintiffs' attorneys fees and all expenses of trial in the instant action, seeking that this Court award plaintiffs exemplary and/or punitive damages for defendants' malicious acts and wanton disregard of the rights of plaintiffs in the sum of $500,000.00, and requesting this Court to award plaintiffs all other relief to which they may be found entitled.

This Court held a hearing on June 4, 1974, at which it heard testimony and took evidence in regards to the claims of plaintiffs. Upon consideration and for the reasons stated below, plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction is hereby denied.

The only witness presented by plaintiff was one Hurrel Nelson. Mr. Nelson testified as to basic background of plaintiffs' case. Late in 1968, a dispute arose between plaintiffs and defendants. The Union filed grievances which were finally submitted to arbitration. On December 13, 1971 the arbitrator rendered a decision in favor of plaintiffs, but remanded the case for further consideration as to the vacancies available, qualifications of the plaintiffs, dates of eligibility, etc. After reconsideration the matter was again submitted to an arbitrator. On May 7, 1973 the arbitrator returned a decision. In said decision the arbitrator determined that plaintiffs were entitled to "be made whole for any loss of earnings they experienced by reason of this violation." Plaintiffs' Exhibit C, page 4, Arbitration Decision No. 107, May 7, 1973.

It appears that the basic contention of the plaintiffs is that the phrase "made whole" is clear on its face, and that the defendant company should be required through this Court to pay the monies due plaintiffs.

Defendants contend that basically this is a question for the arbitrator or umpire. Defendants assert that the question as to what the proper back pay should be is now before an umpire for a decision and that this Court should not issue a preliminary injunction.

Defendant Union also asserts that it has at all times and is now pressing plaintiffs' demands for monies in arbitration, and is always and has always taken the plaintiffs' position in regards to the amount of money due and as to their desire to become maintenance electricians.

With this factual background, the Court turns to the application of the principles of preliminary injunctions. It is the general purpose of a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo of parties to a dispute until a final determination of an action can be had after a full hearing. Injunctions are in the nature of a remedy in equity, and their grant or denial is within the discretion of the trial court. The trial court is required to balance the equities of the parties assuming the plaintiff can illustrate that there is a probable right and a probable danger that the right may be defeated unless the injunction is issued. The plaintiff must illustrate that he is in substantial need of protection and that the damage to him if the injunction is...