LOCAL 156, UNITED PACKING., F. & A. WKRS. v. DU QUOIN PACK. CO.

• Decision Date: 05 October 1964
• Docket Number: No. 14645.,14645.
• Citation: 337 F.2d 419
• Parties: LOCAL 156, UNITED PACKINGHOUSE, FOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DU QUOIN PACKING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

337 F.2d 419 (1964)

LOCAL 156, UNITED PACKINGHOUSE, FOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DU QUOIN PACKING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14645.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

October 5, 1964.

Paul S. Kuelthau, St. Louis, Mo., Ralph D. Walker, Walker & Williams, East St. Louis, Ill., Moller, Talent & Kuelthau, St. Louis, Mo., for defendant-appellant.

C. C. Dreman, Belleville, Ill., David R. Kentoff, Eugene Cotton, Richard F. Watt, Chicago, Ill., Cotton, Watt, Rockler & Jones, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before DUFFY, KNOCH and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.

KNOCH, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-appellant, Du Quoin Packing Company, hereinafter called "Du Quoin", has appealed from the District Court's finding that the grievances submitted by the plaintiff-appellee, Local 156, United Packinghouse, Food and Allied Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the "Union", are arbitrable and the resultant order directing Du Quoin to arbitrate.

During an eleven-month strike, Du Quoin made certain changes in its operations: (1) transferring its frozen food operation to its Carbondale, Illinois, plant where deliveries are made by employees who are not represented by the Union, and (2) transferring duties performed in the past by the Sales Cooler Clerk, a job in the unit represented by the Union, to the office and the utilization of an I B M system.

On September 15, 1962, Du Quoin and the Union entered into a new agreement, ending the strike. When the employees who had been performing the transferred duties were not reinstated or were assigned to other less well paid duties, the Union submitted two grievances alleging violation of the new collective bargaining agreement in that jobs historically assigned to employees in the bargaining unit continued to be withheld from and after the effective date of the new agreement. The Union complains only of post contract effects.

Du Quoin's position is that these grievances concern changes which the Union concedes Du Quoin was at liberty to make during the strike; that the contract contained no requirement that Du Quoin rescind any action which it had taken during the strike.

Article XVI of the agreement provides in pertinent part as follows:

"Should differences arise between the Company and the Union, or its members employed by the Company, as to the meaning and application of the provisions of this Agreement, * * * there shall be no strike, * * * by the Union or its members, on account of such differences, * * * but all such matters shall be settled as promptly and expeditiously as possible in accordance with the following four-step procedure:

* * * * * *

"4. Should the parties fail to reach an agreement after resort to the three steps above, however, either party may submit the matter to arbitration * * *"

The first three steps have failed to result in any agreement. The Union has requested arbitration and brought this suit to compel it.

The clause is similar to those involved in the Steelworkers trilogy: United Steelworkers...