INTERNATIONAL LADIES', ETC. v. DeeVILLE, ETC.
Decision Date | 17 March 1980 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 79-705. |
Citation | 486 F. Supp. 1253 |
Parties | INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL NO. 111 v. DeeVILLE BLOUSE CO., INC. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Charles W. Johnston, Jr., Harrisburg, Pa., for plaintiff.
Roland Morris, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
Threatening to strike, plaintiff union sent defendant a letter in May 1975 and demanded access to company payroll books and other records according to provisions of a collective bargaining agreement into which the parties had entered.1 When defendant refused to permit plaintiff to inspect all records which it desired, plaintiff submitted the dispute to an arbitrator,2 who determined that defendant had violated the terms and conditions of the collective bargaining agreement. Having filed this action under the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, to enforce the arbitrator's decision, plaintiff now moves for summary judgment, which will be granted.
United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 596-599, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 1360-1362, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960) (emphasis added). Review of arbitration awards is circumscribed further by the following test:
Ludwig Honold Manufacturing Co. v. Fletcher, 405 F.2d 1123, 1128 (3d Cir. 1969) (emphasis added).
In the case at bar the arbitrator interpreted Article XXII of the parties' collective bargaining agreement. This article, captioned "Access to Shop—Examination of Books—Payroll Records", included these provisions:
Plaintiff contends that Section 2 of Article XXII creates an absolute right of access to defendant's books and records "for the purpose of determining compliance with the terms of the agreement" between the parties. Defendant maintains that Section 2, read as a part of the entire agreement, limits plaintiff's right of access to only certain specific books and records and only under certain circumstances. Specifically, defendant asserts that plaintiff can obtain only payroll books and records. The language "and all other pertinent books and records", argues defendant, merely describes records which pertain to payroll. Furthermore, the right of access must be pertinent to "the violation complained of". Under defendant's theory, plaintiff would have to be certain, in advance of the requested access, of its basis for claiming a violation of the agreement by defendant.
Careful examination of the language of Article XXII refutes defendant's contentions. In Section 1 plaintiff receives a right of access to the shop not only to take up actual disputes but also to see if defendant has been complying with the terms of their agreement. Access is not conditioned on the existence of a complaint, for the section provides that union representatives may enter the shop "to take up complaints" or "to determine compliance".
Similarly, in Section 2 defendant agrees, upon request of plaintiff, to submit to union representatives or employees its "payroll books and records and all other pertinent books and records for examination for the purposes of determining compliance with the terms of the agreement". This last phrase, "for the purpose . . .", is identical to the language of Section 1, where the parties acknowledge a distinction between access to the shop for complaints and compliance. The arbitrator reasonably assumed that the parties were cognizant of this distinction in drafting Section 2. By expressly including compliance, instead of limiting the language to complaints, the parties clearly expressed the intent that submission of the books was not conditioned upon the existence of a complaint. Section 2 affords plaintiff, acting in good faith, of course, access to defendant's payroll books and records and all other pertinent books and records without any limiting preconditions.
Section 3 creates certain presumptions and rights in the event of a violation of the previous two sections. Defendant points to the terms of this section as authority for the proposition that the parties contemplated production of other pertinent books and records only if plaintiff alleges a particular violation of the agreement. In particular, defendant points to the language of Section 3, which states that "the failure of the Employer to submit such books, records or data shall be presumptive evidence of the violation complained of and shall justify sustaining the Union's complaint." Defendant stresses the language "of the violation complained of" and argues that this phrase shows the parties' intention to condition access to books and records upon a specific violation of which plaintiff would complain. However, neither Section 2 nor 3 supports this view. The presumption articulated in Section 3 not only applies to submission of books, records and data but also to access to defendant's shop. Once again, the pertinent language is couched in the disjunctive. The presumption created by Section 3 clearly applies to both access to the shop, a right created by Section 1, and submission of books and records, a right created by Section 2. Therefore, if a complaint is pending and the union, to investigate the complaint, attempts to gain, and defendant denies, access to the shop or to books and records, Section 3 creates a presumption that defendant committed the alleged violation. Keeping in mind, as defendant argues, that access to books and records depends upon the existence of a complaint, it would necessarily follow that access to defendant's shop also depends upon such a complaint. Regrettably for defendant, this interpretation squarely contradicts the express language of the collective bargaining agreement.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McClain v. Mack Trucks, Inc.
...been established for the specific purpose of mediation and conciliation of disputes"), International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local No. 111 v. DeeVille Blouse Co., 486 F.Supp. 1253 (E.D.Pa.1980) (requiring plaintiff to comply with administrative procedures of a collective bargaining ......
-
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Independent Oil Workers Union
...441 F.Supp. 1346, 1350 (M.D.Pa.1977), aff'd mem., 588 F.2d 819, 822 (3d Cir. 1978); International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local No. 111 v. DeeVille Blouse Co., 486 F.Supp. 1253, 1258 (E.D.Pa.1980); Keystone Printed Specialties Co. v. Scranton Printing Pressmen Union No. 119, 386 F.S......
-
Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Delaware & Hudson Ry.
...does not sit as an appellate body and review the merits of an arbitrator's decision. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local No. 111 v. DeeVille Blouse Co., 486 F.Supp. 1253 (E.D.Pa.1980). In the case at bar the Merits Neutral found that the discipline imposed by Conrail was unr......
- Campbell v. Bergeron, Civ. A. No. 77-343-B.