LOCAL 379, ETC. v. Jacobs Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 April 1953
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 3893.
• Citation: 120 F. Supp. 228
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: LOCAL 379 OF INTERNATIONAL UNION UNITED AUTO. AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C.I.O., v. JACOBS MFG. CO.

120 F. Supp. 228

LOCAL 379 OF INTERNATIONAL UNION UNITED AUTO. AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C.I.O., v. JACOBS MFG. CO.

Civ. A. No. 3893.

United States District Court D. Connecticut.

April 16, 1953.

Nathan Aaron, Hartford, Conn., Harold B. Roitman, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Walfrid G. Lundborg (of Shipman & Goodwin), Hartford, Conn., for defendant.

SMITH, District Judge.

The issue in this case, as stated by the Court in the pre-trial order of March 2, is as follows:

"Whether the company's refusal to provide employment at lighter work than his former work for Valentino Celani, who has been unable to perform tasks formerly performed by him as an employee of the defendant following a coronary attack, is arbitrable under the employment contract between plaintiff and defendant as a discharge or suspension of Celani."

Finding of Facts

1. This action arises under the provisions of the Labor Management Relations Act 1947, Title III, Section 301, Public Law 101, 80th Congress, 29 U.S. C.A. § 185, under which this Court has jurisdiction without respect to the amount in controversy or diversity of citizenship.

2. The plaintiff, Local 379 International Union United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. O., is a voluntary unincorporated association including in its membership employees of the defendant Jacobs Manufacturing Company. The plaintiff, Local Union, is a part of the International Union United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. O., popularly called the United Auto Workers with headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. Mr. Stig Lindholtz is President of Local 379, which is a labor organization as defined in Section 2(5) of the Labor Management Relations Act.

3. The defendant, Jacobs Manufacturing Company, is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut with its principal place of business in West Hartford, Connecticut. The defendant is engaged in activities affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Labor Management Relations Act.

4. On July 27, 1950, the plaintiff union and the defendant company entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement. This Agreement is still in full force and effect.

5. Celani, an employee of defendant, suffered a coronary attack on November 18, 1951, which incapacitated him.

6. He was examined by his own doctor, and later by the company doctor on March 3, 1952; he was then and is now unable to return to his old job.

7. On March 25, the Union filed a grievance under Art. XIII see infra of the contract, claiming "the discharge of V. Celani was without reasonable cause * * *". The company refused to recognize this as a grievance on grounds Celani hadn't been discharged.

8. On March 31 and on April 7, the Union repeated its request that the grievance be acted upon; the answer was the same.

9. On May 21, the company offered Celani the choice of remaining on as an inactive employee on a medical leave of absence until November 16, 1952, or terminating his employment for ill-health. The same letter stated also: "We would like to point out that the possibility of improvement in a case such as yours is unlikely."

10. On May 26, the Union submitted the same grievance upon grounds that a company man told Celani's daughter on May 25 that he was discharged.

11. On June 5, the company, having received no response from Celani to its letter of May 21, notified Celani it had decided "* * * to continue you as an inactive employee on a medical leave of absence for an indefinite period. Should you decide to select either one of the proposals we submitted at any time, they are available to you."

12. On June 6, the Union again filed the same grievance; the company's answer was the same as previous answers: "V. Celani has not been discharged."

13. On June 12, the Union renewed its contention, requested a meeting, and in addition requested arbitration on the matter "if the Co. maintains its present position and we are naming Merlin Bishop as our Rep. on the panel."

14. The applicable provisions of the contract are as follows:

"Article V. Grievance Procedure

"Section 1. Should a difference arise between the Company and any employee concerning the meaning, interpretation or application of any provision of this agreement with reference to his rate of pay, wages, hours of employment and conditions of employment, an earnest effort shall be made to settle such difference according to the following sequence and procedure which must be followed: * * *." The procedure involves taking the dispute first to the foreman, then to the Personnel Manager, and then to the Factory Manager.

"Article XII. Arbitration

"Section 1. In the event there arises a dispute or difference of opinion between the Company and any employee or group of employees as to the meaning and interpretation of any provision hereof, or the discharge or suspension of an employee, which dispute or difference arose during the processing of a grievance under the grievance procedure, either party may request that the question of interpretation on which such difference of opinion exists be referred to arbitration in accordance with the following procedure: * * *." The Company and the Union each select a representative; the two representatives then choose a third who acts as chairman for the panel.

"Sec. 2. Decisions in arbitration shall be confined to a determination of the meaning and interpretation of the provisions of the contract which gave rise to the dispute. Decisions in arbitration shall be binding upon both parties. Expenses of arbitration shall be borne equally by the Company and the Union.

"Sec. 3. No question relating to the functions reserved for the Company or the scope of the bargaining unit shall be submitted to arbitration. There shall be no power to add to, subtract from or modify this agreement or to establish or change any rates of pay or wages."

"Article XIII. Discharge

"Section 1. Any employee shall have the right to appeal his discharge or suspension through the grievance procedure within five days after such discharge or suspension becomes effective. Such employee shall have the privilege, after discharge or suspension, of seeing the chairman of the Shop Committee, if he so desires, before leaving the plant. If, as the result of such an appeal, an employee is found to have been discharged or suspended without reasonable cause he shall receive full pay for the time he would have otherwise normally worked."

"Article XV. Vacancies

"Section 1. When a new job or vacancy occurs in a labor grade the employee in any lower grade having the highest plant-wide seniority who is qualified to meet the standards of performance consistent with the proper ability to do the services required, and makes application for such job, shall be given preference in filling such new job or vacancy.

"Sec. 2. When a new job or vacancy occurs in any labor grade the Company agrees to post a notice of such new job or vacancy on the Company bulletin board for a period of not less than twenty-six hours, except that the Company may hire or transfer employees to the following departments: toolroom, screw machine,

...