INTERNATIONAL UNION, ETC. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 12833.

Decision Date30 June 1959
Docket NumberNo. 12833.,12833.
Citation268 F.2d 352
PartiesINTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS (AFL-CIO), an Unincorporated Association, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

John G. Wayman, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Leonard L. Scheinholtz, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Benjamin C. Sigal, Washington, D. C. (J. Alfred Wilner, Wilner, Wilner & Kuhn, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and STALEY, Circuit Judges.

McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge.

Employer appellant and the union bargaining agent being in dispute regarding the arbitrability of two grievances, the union sued in the district court under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185, in accordance with the rule of Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, 1957, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 912, 1 L.Ed.2d 972.

From the stipulated facts it appears that the modified collective bargaining agreement in effect between the parties contains a detailed grievance procedure for the settlement of disputes and for the arbitration of certain types of grievances which remain unsettled after the grievance procedure has been exhausted. Not every matter is arbitrable without the consent of both sides and there are express limitations on the authority of the arbitrator. Where there is disagreement as to the arbitrability of any grievance this issue must be determined "By the Court before the matter can proceed to arbitration."

The first grievance was filed September 10, 1956. It basically concerns time value, which is the amount of time, expressed in decimal hours, in which an employee can produce a unit free from defects. It serves as a wage factor element when the incentive system is in effect. To arrive at such a worker's pay, the number of units he produces in any given period is multiplied by the time value for the particular unit to determine the multiplier to be used on that portion of the rate used in incentive earnings — the base rate. That multiplied base rate plus the non-incentive portion of the guaranteed rate or adders (i. e. general increases and cost of living allowances which are not applied to incentive earnings) gives the employee's pay for that period. Time value for an operation can be arrived at by various methods, including time study, from formula or data, by comparison, or by estimate.

The manufactured article here concerning us is Style Y-53921, a tie bar for a water cooler which is manufactured on a piece of equipment known as a "press brake" using universal dies, a machine designed to perform the same operations (bending, notching or piercing) on raw material of varying lengths, widths, or thicknesses. Style Y-22070 is a part manufactured on the same machine, but is of different size than Style Y-53921 in that its width is a 2 7/32" whereas, the width of the Style Y-53921 is 1 23/32". When the company began producing Style Y-53921, it established a time value for this part by estimate. At that time, there was in existence a recorded time value for Style Y-22070, established by the formula method, which was .0015 higher than the new time value established for Style Y-53921.

In the grievance meetings the union contended that the recorded time value established by the formula method was intended to apply to parts of varying size including the size of Style Y-53921 and that employer should have applied the existing recorded time value for Style Y-22070 to the manufacture of Style Y-53921 instead of establishing a new time value for this operation, even though the two parts were of different width. Westinghouse maintained that the recorded time value for Style Y-22070 applied only to that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Carey v. General Electric Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 11, 1963
    ...F.2d 105, 109 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 898, 82 S.Ct. 174, 7 L.Ed.2d 93 (1961),5 and International Union of Elec. Workers v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 268 F.2d 352, 355 (3d Cir., 1959).6 Even were we to agree with the employer's contention that certain of the grievances might result......
  • P. T. & L. Const. Co., Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 469
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • November 30, 1973
    ...Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 84 S.Ct. 909, 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964); International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 268 F.2d 352 (3rd Cir. 1959). The interpretation of the arbitration clause must be made in light of a current policy g......
  • Hynes v. Clarke
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • January 28, 1997
    ...Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 84 S.Ct. 909, 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964); International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 268 F.2d 352 (3rd Cir.1959)), aff'd 66 N.J. 97, 328 A.2d 603 (1974). Furthermore, "where an arbitration award does not......
  • Carey v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 6, 1962
    ...Radio Corp. of America v. Association of Professional Eng. Personnel, 3 Cir., 291 F.2d 105; International Union of Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 3 Cir., 268 F.2d 352), but in addition how much, if at all, pre-existing changes in procedures could be incorporated i......
  • 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