LOCAL 201, ETC. v. General Electric Company

• Decision Date: 07 January 1959
• Docket Number: No. 5397.,5397.
• Citation: 262 F.2d 265
• Parties: LOCAL 201, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

262 F.2d 265 (1959)

LOCAL 201, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v.GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 5397.

United States Court of Appeals First Circuit.

Heard November 6, 1958.

Decided January 7, 1959.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

James McConnell Harkless, Boston, Mass., with whom Grant, Angoff, Goldman and Manning, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for appellants.

Warren F. Farr, Boston, Mass., with whom John F. Repko, West Lynn, Mass., A. Lane McGovern, and Ropes, Gray, Best, Coolidge & Rugg, Boston, Mass., were on brief, for appellee.

Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.

MAGRUDER, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissing a complaint under § 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act(61 Stat. 156)29 U.S.C.A. § 185, seeking a decree for specific performance to compel the employer to arbitrate a certain described "grievance" filed on behalf of an employee named Adolf J. Graciale.We have had a number of such cases.SeeLocal 205, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America v. General Electric Co., 1 Cir., 1956, 233 F. 2d 85, affirmed 1957, 353 U.S. 547, 77 S. Ct. 921, 1 L.Ed.2d 1028;Newspaper Guild of Boston v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., 1 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 102;Goodall-Sanford, Inc., v. United Textile Workers of America, 1 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 104, affirmed 1957, 353 U.S. 550, 77 S.Ct. 920, 1 L.Ed.2d 1031;Newspaper Guild of Boston v. Boston Herald-Traveler Corp., 1 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 471;Local No. 149, American Federation of Technical Engineers (AFL) v. General Electric Co., 1 Cir., 1957, 250 F.2d 922, certiorari denied 1958, 356 U.S. 938, 78 S.Ct. 780, 2 L.Ed.2d 813;Boston Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Insurance Agents' International Union (AFL-CIO), 1 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d 516;New Bedford Defense Products Division of Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. LocalNo. 1113 of the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW, AFL-CIO), 1 Cir., 1958, 258 F.2d 522.They raise many questions that are not free from difficulty.

As indicated in the cases just cited, it is the established law, in this circuit at least, that when a suit for specific performance of an agreement to arbitrate is brought under § 301, the district court, sitting as a court of equity, and before giving the relief requested, has a necessary preliminary determination to make, namely, whether respondent is in violation of a promise to arbitrate the particular issue.We have recognized that arbitration is an important process, worthy of judicial encouragement; and therefore that if the arbitration clause of the collective bargaining contract contains ambiguous language susceptible of two or more interpretations, the court should ordinarily lean to one directed toward confiding a wide scope of jurisdiction to the arbitrator.Sometimes the agreement may be interpreted to the effect that the parties not only have agreed to submit certain types of grievance to arbitration, but have also consented to arbitrate all preliminary issues of arbitrability; that is, whether the particular grievance is of the sort falling within the scope of the arbitration clause, and if so whether the parties have complied with all conditions precedent to the promise to arbitrate.When the language used is of the breadth above described, then the court should compel respondent to live up to its agreement, by ordering it to submit to arbitration the preliminary question of arbitrability which, if determined by the arbitrator in the affirmative, should be followed by arbitration of the grievance itself.

And we have tried to make clear that once the court has decided that the parties have agreed to leave the particular issue to arbitration, it should not stay its hand in order to examine whether the correct determination of the issue, on its merits, is clear under the terms of the agreement.We held as much in New Bedford Defense Products Division of Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. LocalNo. 1113, supra, 258 F.2d at page 526.We have no occasion to retract or qualify what we there said.

Sometimes the terms of the collective bargaining contract, as properly interpreted, are quite restrictive as to the issues which the parties are willing to leave to arbitration.In particular, the parties do not always trust the arbitrator to decide the preliminary issue of arbitrability.In the case at bar this is so, and the restriction here is not left to inference and argument, but is spelled out in crystal-clear language.Hence the district court had itself of necessity to decide whether the grievance in question is arbitrable as involving the interpretation or application of a term of the agreement.

Appellant local union is the certified bargaining representative for the production and maintenance employees at the West Lynn, Massachusetts, General Electric plant, where this dispute arose.Appellant relies solely on the National Agreement which was executed between the International Union and General Electric Company.This agreement provided expressly that the locals (such as appellant), which from time to time were certified as exclusive bargaining representatives for units within the Company, would be parties to the National Agreement while so certified.So far as appears, there is no written supplementary contract between the local and the management of the West Lynn General Electric plant.

The National Agreement contained a routine union recognition clause (Art. I(1)) and a standard management prerogatives clause (Art. XXVI).The grievance procedure (in so far as here relevant) was a fairly normal one involving three successive steps, discussions at the foreman, plant management, and national headquarters levels (Art. XIII(1), (2)).Strikes and lockouts were mutually disclaimed, "unless and until all of the respective provisions of the successive steps of the grievance procedure * * * shall have been complied with * * * or if the matter is submitted to arbitration * * *"(Art. XIV).We take it that this no-strike clause sheds no light on the breadth of arbitrability; even though a grievance has technically been "submitted" to arbitration, if in fact it is held to be not arbitrable under the terms of the agreement, then presumably economic sanctions are available.

The arbitration provision of the National Agreement reads in relevant part as follows:

"Article XV

"Arbitration

"1.Any grievance which remains unsettled after having been fully processed pursuant to the provisions of Article XIII, and which involves either,

(a)the interpretation or application of a provision of this Agreement, or (b) a disciplinary penalty (including discharge) imposed on or after the effective date of this Agreement, which is alleged to have been imposed without just cause,

shall be submitted to arbitration upon written request of either the Union or the Company, provided such request is made within 30 days after the final decision of the Company has been given to the Union pursuant to the grievance procedure.For the purpose of proceedings within the scope of (b) above, the standard to be applied by an arbitrator to cases involving disciplinary penalties (including discharge) is that such penalties shall be imposed only for just cause.

"2.(a) Within 10 days following a written request for arbitration of a grievance, the Company or the Union may request the American Arbitration Association to submit a Panel of names from which an arbitrator may be chosen.In the selection of an arbitrator and the conduct of any arbitration, the Voluntary Labor Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association shall control, except that:

(i) notwithstanding any provision of such Rules, the Association shall have no authority to appoint an arbitrator in any matter who has not been approved by both parties until and unless the parties have had submitted to them at least three Panels of arbitrators and have been unable to select a mutually satisfactory arbitrator therefrom; and

(ii) either party may, if it desires, be represented by Counsel.

"(b) It is further expressly understood and agreed that the American Arbitration Association shall have no authority to process a request for arbitration or appoint an arbitrator if either party shall advise the Association that such request arises under Section 1(a) of this Article, but that the grievance desired to be arbitrated does not, in its opinion, raise an arbitrable issue.In such event, the Association shall have authority to process the request for arbitration and appoint an arbitrator in accordance with its rules only after a final judgment of a Court has determined that the grievance upon which arbitration has been requested raises arbitrable issues and has directed arbitration of such issues.The foregoing part of this subsection (b) shall not be applicable if by its terms the request for arbitration requests only relief from a disciplinary penalty or discharge alleged to have been imposed without just cause."(Emphasis added.)¹

The only substantive provision which appellant relies upon as relevant to the grievance it seeks to have arbitrated is found in Art. XI, which reads as follows:

"Article XI

"Reduction or Increase in Forces

"1.Whenever there is a reduction in the working force or employees are laid off from their regular jobs, total length of continuous service, applied on a plant, department, or other basis as negotiated locally, shall be the major factor determining the employees to be laid off or transferred(exclusive of upgrading or transfers to higher rated jobs).However, ability will be given consideration.

"Similarly, in all cases of rehiring after layoff, total length of continuous service, applied on a plant, department, or other basis as negotiated locally, shall be the major

...