Local Union No. 4-449, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. Amoco Chemical Corp., AFL-CI
| Decision Date | 01 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-2462,P,AFL-CI,78-2462 |
| Parties | 100 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2646, 85 Lab.Cas. P 11,088 LOCAL UNION NO. 4-449, OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS UNION,laintiff-Appellant, v. AMOCO CHEMICAL CORPORATION, a Texas Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
James R. Watson, Jr., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
Baker & Botts, John B. Abercrombie, Coyt Randall Johnston, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before COLEMAN, FAY and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.
The judgment entered in favor of the defendants is affirmed on the basis of the Memorandum and Order entered by Judge Ross N. Sterling on May 31, 1978 and appended hereto.
OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC
WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO
v.
AMOCO CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
A TEXAS CORPORATION
United States District Court, S. D. Texas, Galveston Division.
May 31, 1978.
Bray & Watson, James R. Watson, Jr., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff.
Baker & Botts, John B. Abercrombie, Houston, Tex., for defendant.
This is a suit to compel arbitration in which both the Plaintiff, Local Union No. 4-449, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, and the Defendant, Amoco Chemical Corporation, have filed motions for summary judgment. The controversy arises from two grievances filed by members of the Plaintiff union contesting the denial of sick pay benefits for certain work absences. A third grievance, filed by a union member complaining of the Defendant's refusal to arbitrate the sick pay benefit provisions, is also involved.
The sole issue before this court is whether the Defendant breached the collective bargaining agreement (Agreement) in refusing to arbitrate the grievances filed concerning the Defendant's failure to pay sick pay benefits. The question is a matter of law which requires the interpretation of several articles of the Agreement.
Article XVI, §§ 2 and 3, are the grievance and arbitration provisions of the Agreement. They present not unusual steps for consideration of the grievance leading to arbitration for the selection of arbitrators and the arbitration procedure.
Article VIII of the Agreement provides for the payment of sickness and disability benefits as follows:
"Benefits with respect to sickness and disability shall be payable In accordance with the Company's Sickness and Disability Benefits Plan as presently in effect except that an employee will be paid holiday pay in place of sick leave pay for a holiday falling on a normally scheduled day of work, but which normally would not have been worked by the employee." (Emphasis added.)
Section IX of the Disability Benefits Plan (Plan) which is referred to in the Agreement states:
"The decision of the Board of Directors of the Company on any matter concerning the administration of this plan as a whole or as applied to any specific case Shall be final and the Board reserves the right to interpret, apply, amend or revoke this Plan at any time." (Emphasis added.)
Plaintiff contends that there is some ambiguity as to the availability of arbitration of grievances concerning sick pay benefits and that such doubt must be resolved in favor of arbitration. This assertion is correct in so far as it maintains that arbitration must be given the benefit of the doubt. United Steelworkers v. Warrior and Gulf Navig. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960). However, there appears to be no ambiguity as to the intent of the Agreement to exclude grievances dealing with sickness and disability benefits from arbitration. Section IX of the Plan unequivocally states that the Board of Directors of the Company (Board) is to be the final decision maker in matters concerning administration of the Plan. The Agreement, through Article VIII, clearly incorporates the Plan as part of its provisions.
Each grievance at issue here was processed and denied through the procedure set up in § 2 of Article XVI of the Agreement. Plaintiff would have the Defendant appeal these decisions through the arbitration procedure set up in § 3 of Article XVI. It is clear, however, that the parties have agreed and contracted to make the next and final appellate step from § 2 to be the Board, pursuant to Article VIII of the Agreement and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houston Ref., L.P. v. United Steel
...interpretation. Id.33 First, this case can be distinguished from our decision in Local Union No. 4–449, Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Union v. Amoco Chem. Corp., 589 F.2d 162 (5th Cir.1979). At issue in Amoco were two grievances filed by [union] members ... contesting the denial of sick pay b......
-
Eitmann v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc.
...agreement is properly within the scope of the contractual grievance procedure. See also Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union v. Amoco Chemical Corp., 589 F.2d 162, 164 (5th Cir.1979). Our analysis is supported by the Supreme Court's recent interpretation of J.I. Case, in Belknap, Inc. v. Ha......
-
Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Trailer Train Co.
... ... v. National Rail Passenger Corp., 554 F.2d 657, 660 (5th Cir. 1977) 7 ; J. S. & ... 1347, 1353, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409, 1418 (1960); Local Union No. 4-449, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. Amoco Chemical Corp., 589 F.2d 162, 163 (5th ... ...
-
Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. v. GENERAL DRIVERS, ETC.
...matter. See Johnston-Tombigbee Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Local Union No. 2462, 596 F.2d 126 (5th Cir. 1979); Local Union No. 4-449 v. Amoco Chemical Corp., 589 F.2d 162 (5th Cir. 1979). See also Friedrich v. Local No. 780, 515 F.2d 225 (5th Cir. 5. Schlitz bears the burden of proof in showing t......