Great Scott Supermkts., Inc. v. Local U. No. 337, Teamsters, Civ. A. No. 4-70265.

Decision Date14 September 1973
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 4-70265.
Citation363 F. Supp. 1351
PartiesGREAT SCOTT SUPERMARKETS, INC., Plaintiff, v. LOCAL UNION NO. 337, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, AND WAREHOUSEMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, and Jerome S. Coleman, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

James C. Barkley, Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.

Sheldon Greenblatt, Jerome S. Coleman, Southfield, Mich., for defendants.

OPINION

FREEMAN, District Judge.

This is an application by plaintiff for confirmation and enforcement of an arbitrator's award. Defendants responded with a motion for summary judgment or dismissal and/or an application to vacate the award of the arbitrator.

Members of the defendant union engaged in a wildcat strike against the plaintiff supermarket on April 7, 1972. As a result of this strike, plaintiff discharged several employees. These employees filed grievances with the union. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, a panel hearing was held to determine the merits of the particular grievances. Through such a hearing, the union determines whether or not to demand arbitration. In this case, the union decided not to demand arbitration but the supermarket did so demand.

Representatives of the supermarket were present at this hearing. One of the panel members was Jerome S. Coleman, one of the defendants in this action. Mr. Coleman is both the union's attorney and secretary of the union's grievance panel. Coleman prepared the panel hearing reports summarizing the facts and the panel's conclusions.

On June 29, 1973, the arbitrator issued a subpoena duces tecum to Mr. Coleman ordering him to furnish copies of the following documents:

1. All reports of Local 337 panel hearings held before the Local 337 panel of which you are secretary and which deal with the discharge grievances filed by the grievants involved in this arbitration, and by other grievants in relation to the wildcat strike of April 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, 1972, which occurred at Great Scott and which mention any of the grievants involved in this arbitration.
2. Any statements (copies of which are retained by any one or more of the grievants) which were made by any one or more of the grievants to the National Labor Relations Board or any other state or federal agency and which relate in any way to the discharges to be litigated in this arbitration.

Mr. Coleman filed a motion to quash the subpoena. One of the grounds claimed by Coleman in his motion was that he had prepared the documents in his capacity as attorney for the union and that the reports thus constituted confidential communications. After a hearing, the arbitrator denied the motion as he found that Coleman had been acting in his capacity as secretary and not as attorney. The arbitrator ordered the production of the documents "without any comments or recommendations or any other addendum added thereto by Mr. Coleman or any other person other than the mere Reports of said meetings as would normally be prepared by any such Secretary." He also ordered production of copies of statements made by the grievants to the NLRB.

Defendants refused to comply with the subpoena and plaintiffs now request this court to confirm and enforce the arbitrator's award.

9 U.S.C.A. § 9 deals with confirmation of arbitrators' awards. It states in pertinent part:

If the parties in their agreement have agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration, and shall specify the court, then at any time within one year after the award is made any party to the arbitration may apply to the court so specified for an order confirming the award, and thereupon the court must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected . . .

The plaintiff also comes into court under 29 U.S.C.A. § 185 which says:

(a) Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.

9 U.S.C.A. § 10 sets forth the grounds on which an arbitrator's award may be vacated:

In either of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration —
(a) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.
(b) Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them.
(c) Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.
(d) Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.

Defendants contend that while the arbitrator has the power to issue a subpoena, in this case the arbitrator exceeded his authority by demanding the production of documents which fall into the category of the work product of an attorney. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3). Thus, defendants assert that this court can and should vacate the arbitrator's award under § 10(d). Neither party argues that § 10 is not applicable to this case.

The defendants claim that the reports were prepared in anticipation of litigation and that "it is no mere coincidence that the attorney for the local is also the panel reporter." They say that these panel hearings are always conducted with an eye towards possible arbitration. As there was no showing of need as required by Rule 26(a)(3), they claim that the arbitrator exceeded his power.

While the arbitrator's award allows Coleman to delete his mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and theories, defendants claim that this would be an unduly burdensome procedure for them since all the reports would have to be redrafted.

Defendants say that since this court would not have been able to demand discovery of these documents, the arbitrator exceeded his authority in issuing the subpoena and his award does not merit enforcement.

It seems that defendants continue to assert that Coleman was acting in his capacity of attorney when he prepared the reports. The arbitrator has already found otherwise. This court will not, nor can it, quarrel with the factfinding of the arbitrator.

In addition, defendants raise the new argument of work product that does not appear to have been raised before the arbitrator although the award did make some allowance for work product deletions.

An arbitrator derives his jurisdiction and authority through the contract of the parties. There is no statutory requirement of arbitration and the parties are free to determine the grievances which are arbitrable. In this case, the parties have agreed to submit all grievances to an arbitrator "who shall have the sole and exclusive power and jurisdiction to determine whether or not a particular grievance, dispute, or complaint is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Keating v. Superior Court, Alameda County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 28, 1980
    ...proceedings, and, therefore, cannot serve as a means for applying rule 23 to arbitrations. (Great Scott Supermkts., Inc. v. Local U. No. 337, Teamsters (E.D. Mich., S.D. 1973) 363 F.Supp. 1351, 1354.) However, given the fact that issues such as those involved in the certification of the cla......
  • Champ v. Siegel Trading Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • May 18, 1995
    ...formal trial." Burton v. Bush, 614 F.2d 389, 390 (4th Cir.1980) (citations omitted); see also Great Scott Supermarkets, Inc. v. Local No. 337, Teamsters, 363 F.Supp. 1351, 1354-55 (E.D.Mich.1973) (refusing to apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Evidence to the......
  • Wilkes-Barre Pub. v. Newspaper Guild of Wilkes-Barre
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • December 14, 1982
    ...to enforcement of the subpoenas duces tecum. See, e.g., Great Scott Supermarkets, Inc. v. Local Union No. 337, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffers and Warehousemen of North America, 363 F.Supp. 1351, 1353 (E.D.Mich.1973); Local Lodge 1746, International Association of Machinis......
  • Teamsters Local Union No. 394 v. Associated Grocers of Iowa Co-op., Inc.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1978
    ...Hess Corp. v. Local 22026, Federal Labor Union, 385 F.Supp. 279, 284 (D.N.J.1974); Great Scott Supermarkets, Inc. v. Local 337, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 363 F.Supp. 1351, 1353 (E.D.Mich.1973); District 50, United Mine Workers v. Pittston Co., 210 F.Supp. 781, 784 This court a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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