Local 1111 of United Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers of America v. Allen-Bradley Co., ALLEN-BRADLEY
Decision Date | 06 November 1951 |
Docket Number | ALLEN-BRADLEY |
Citation | 259 Wis. 609,49 N.W.2d 720 |
Parties | , 20 Lab.Cas. P 66,617 LOCAL 1111 OF UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, OF AMERICA et al. v.CO. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Daniel D. Sobel, Milwaukee, for Local 1111 of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America et al.
Lines, Spooner & Quarles, Milwaukee (John G. Kamps and Robert L. Mann, Milwaukee, of counsel), for Allen-Bradley Co.
The plaintiff, Rose Giaimo, was an employee of the Allen-Bradley Company (hereinafter called 'Employer'). Local 1111 (hereinafter called 'Union') is a labor union which on June 22, 1948, entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Employer, wherein the Union was recognized as the exclusive Bargaining Agent for all of the Employer's production and maintenance employees. Said agreement provided for the settlement of 'grievances', leaves of absence etc. and it had the following provision:
Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that under and pursuant to the Bargaining Agreement, Rose Giaimo applied for and was granted a leave of absence on account of illness; and following her illness she applied for re-employment but the Employer refused to grant such re-employment; that a grievance under the terms of said Collective Bargaining Agreement was processed by the Union and the Employer, concerning Rose Giaimo, but the Employer refused to reinstate her. The parties were unable to settle said grievance satisfactorily, whereupon the Union invoked the arbitration provision in Paragraph 42 of said Agreement. In answer to the complaint the Employer alleged matters of defense because of which it denied that Rose Giaimo was entitled to be reinstated as an employee, and alleged that the court had no jurisdiction to grant the prayer of the plaintiffs' complaint or to order defendant to arbitrate the controversy existing between the parties to the action.
After a trial of issues under the pleadings Judge Breidenbach stated in a written decision:
'The parties before the commencement of the trial entered into an oral stipulation setting forth the facts as follows:
'It appears, therefore, that Rose Giaimo, was confined to the Hospital for Mental Diseases during the period of her leave of absence and was therefore unable to comply with the provisions with respect to furnishing doctor's certificates of necessity during the period of such confinement and that under all of the facts and circumstances disclosed by the stipulation and the testimony taken upon the trial the question of the right of Rose Giaimo for re-employment presented a 'grievance' within the intent and contemplation of the bargaining agreement and that, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to have such question and grievance submitted for arbitration pursuant to provisions of Paragraph 22 of the bargaining agreement; and plaintiffs are entitled to judgment declaring the contract in full force and effect; and that it was the intent of the contract that under the facts disclosed that the grievance herein should be submitted to arbitration * * *.
'The prayer of plaintiffs' complaint demands judgment (2) 'for an order of this court requiring the defendant company to arbitrate the grievance concerning the employee, Rose Giaimo, under the provisions of said Collective Bargaining Agreement; (3) for an order of this court restraining and enjoining the defendant company from further violating the terms and provisions of the said Agreement.'
'Section 298.01, Stats., relating to arbitration provides: 'A provision in any written contract to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract, or out of the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof, or an agreement in writing between two or more persons to submit to arbitration any controversy existing between them at the time of the agreement to submit, shall be valid, irrevocable and enforceable save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract; provided, however, that the provisions of this chapter shall not apply to contracts between employers and employes, or between employers and associations of employes, except as provided in section 111.10 of the statutes.''
'Thus it appears that the provisions for specific enforcement of arbitration of future disputes does not apply to contracts between employers and employes. We must, therefore, look to common law to determine whether or not such contracts are enforceable.
'Plaintiffs in support of their contention rely upon Hopkins v. Gilman, 22 Wis. 476; Schneider v. Reed, 123 Wis. 488, 101 N.W. 682; Kipp v. Laum [Laun], 146 Wis. 591, 131 N.W. 418; Depies-Heus Oil Co. v. Sielaff, 246 Wis. 36, 16 N.W.2d 386. These cases are distinguishable upon the ground that they involved the principle of appraisement and not of arbitration, and therefore are not applicable to the situation here presented. 'The distinction between appraisal and arbitration is of great importance, as appraisals are subject at common law to rules in many respects different from those applied to arbitration, and the modern arbitration statutes are held not to apply to appraisals.' Williston on Contracts, Sec. 1921.
'In Utility Workers Union of America v. Ohio Power Co., Ohio Com.Pl., 77 N.E.2d 629, in construing a statute similar to the Wisconsin statute, the Court said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United Ass'n of Journeymen and Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of U.S. and Canada, Local Union 525, Las Vegas v. Stine
...it. Public policy, therefore, seems to me to require that effect should be given to the contract.' In Local 1111, etc. v. Allen-Bradley Co., 259 Wis. 609, 49 N.W.2d 720, 723, specific enforcement of an arbitration agreement was denied, the court deciding to adhere to the common-law rule abo......
-
Clark v. Hein-Werner Corp.
...contract. At common law in Wisconsin such an arbitration clause was unenforcible. Local 1111, etc. v. Allen-Bradley Co., 1951, 259 Wis. 609, 49 N.W.2d 720.3 See Lenhoff, Arbitration and the Individual, 9 Arbitration Journal (1954) 3, ...
-
Bell v. Personnel Bd. of Wis.
... ... Co. v. Public Service Commission, 253 Wis. 397, at ... ...
-
Dunphy Boat Corp. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Bd.
...On this point see authorities cited at page 614 of our decision in Local 1111 of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America v. Allen-Bradley Co., 1951, 259 Wis. 609, 49 N.W.2d 720, at page 723. The words 'including an agreement to accept an arbitration award', appearing in pare......