Macneish v. New York Typographical Union No. 6

• Decision Date: 16 May 1962
• Citation: 205 F. Supp. 558
• Parties: N. S. MACNEISH, as Treasurer of Publishers' Association of New York City (on behalf of its member, The New York Times Company), Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 6, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

205 F. Supp. 558

N. S. MACNEISH, as Treasurer of Publishers' Association of New York City (on behalf of its member, The New York Times Company), Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 6, Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

May 16, 1962.

Townley, Updike, Carter & Rodgers, New York City, for plaintiff.

James W. Rodgers, Andrew L. Hughes, Charles T. Bates, New York City, of counsel.

John J. Sheehan, New York City, for defendant.

FREDERICK van PELT BRYAN, District Judge.

This is an action for violation of the collective bargaining agreement between the Publishers' Association of New York City, an unincorporated association, (the Association) and its member newspapers, as employer, and the New York Typographical Union No. 6 (the Union), as representative of the composing room employees of the member newspapers. Plaintiff Macneish sues as Treasurer of the Association on behalf of its member The New York Times Company. He seeks an order: (1) compelling arbitration of a grievance in accordance with the terms and conditions of the collective bargaining agreement; and (2) restraining defendant Union from proceeding with a proposed hearing before its Discipline Committee pending the outcome of the arbitration.

The answer denies violation of the agreement and as a separate defense alleges that the agreement does not obligate defendant to arbitrate the grievance set forth in the complaint since the dispute is not arbitrable.

Jurisdiction is based on § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185, (L.M. R.A.),¹ and the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.

This is "an industry affecting commerce" and the jurisdictional requirements of the L.M.R.A. have been met. "We need not determine whether jurisdiction might be sustained under the latter (Arbitration) act, cf. Signal-Stat Corp. v. Local 475, 2 Cir., 1956, 235 F.2d 298, certiorari denied, 354 U.S. 911, 77 S.Ct. 1293, 1 L.Ed.2d 1428, since it is clear that Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act confers power upon the District Courts to compel arbitration in accordance with the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 1957, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 912, 923 1 L.Ed.2d 972." Engineers Association v. Sperry Gyroscope Company, 251 F.2d 133, 135 (2 Cir. 1957), cert. den. 356 U.S. 932, 78 S.Ct. 774, 2 L.Ed.2d 762 (1958).

Plaintiff now moves, by order to show cause, to compel arbitration and to enjoin the scheduled Union disciplinary proceeding pending an award.

It is well settled that § 301(a) of the L.M.R.A. not only confers jurisdiction to enforce collective bargaining agreements, but also provides "the necessary legal remedies." Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, supra, 353 U.S. p. 455, 77 S.Ct. 912. The motion is properly brought under that section.

The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:

The collective bargaining agreement in suit was for a term from December 8, 1958 to December 7, 1960, and governed the rates of pay, hours and other conditions of employment of employees working in the composing rooms of the newspaper members of the Association. The agreement was extended and was in full force and effect during this controversy. It provided for the arbitration of "Any controversy (except as provided otherwise herein) arising under this contract. * * *."

On February 10, 1961, the chairman of the Union chapel at the New York Times and four other men employed in the Times composing room filed charges with the president of the Union against Jackson, the day shift foreman of the composing room. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement Jackson was required to be a member of the Union. The charges were for "un-unionlike acts" such as "wilfully harassing, disciplining, admonishing, threatening discharges, intimidating and otherwise coercing members of the composing room * * *. Jackson's tactics also include the hunting of members into the washrooms and thereupon admonishing them about time lost."

Jackson was notified of the charges filed against him by letter dated February 15, 1961. Thereafter, on February 24, the Association, on behalf of the Times, filed a grievance "arising out of the Union's unilateral action in processing a grievance against the day-shift foreman," pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement and requested "a prompt meeting to select an arbitrator to hear the matter."

Section 5 of the collective bargaining agreement provides that,

"The operation, authority and control of each composing room shall be vested exclusively in the office (of the newspaper) through its representative, the general foreman, who shall be a member of the Union. Each office shall post the name of the general foreman and the employee who will represent him during his absence. In either event the employee whose name is so posted shall be in complete charge and vested with all the authority granted by this agreement to the general foreman.

"The office, or the foreman, shall also post the names of employees who shall act as shift foremen, and such persons shall have the full authority of the foreman in supervising and directing work and may recommend the discharge of employees."

The basis for the grievance of the Times, as stated in the letter of February 24 was that,

"The nature of the Union complaint clearly indicates that the chapel action grows out of the execution of the supervisory duties of the shift foreman which have been specifically granted to him under Section 5 of the agreement."

The employer, in essence, contended that the proposed disciplinary proceedings by the Union interfered with the exclusive operation, authority and control of the composing room granted to the newspaper through its representatives, the foreman and the shift foreman, by the collective bargaining agreement. It maintained that such proceedings would therefore be in violation of the agreement and that the question of the Union's right to take such action was within the scope of the arbitration clause of the agreement as a "controversy * * * arising under this contract."

On May 18, 1961 the Association and Times reasserted the grievance. However, on June 6, 1961 the Union refused to arbitrate under the agreement, claiming that "The controversy which brings Mr. Nathan Jackson before the Discipline Committee is not a proper one for a grievance Committee because it deals with the alleged violation of Union law by Mr. Jackson." It advised that it would proceed with the hearing before its Discipline Committee.

On October 13 the Union notified Jackson to appear at a Union Discipline Committee meeting set for October 24. At that juncture plaintiff instituted this action.

The Union's position is that employer's motion to compel arbitration must be denied on the grounds that: (a) the issue raised is not arbitrable under the collective bargaining agreement; (b) the employer is attempting to get through arbitration what it was unsuccessful in obtaining by negotiation; and (c) the employer is seeking to attack collaterally an arbitration award made in January of 1959 which determined the same question.

I turn first to defendant's initial and most substantial contention — that the issue raised by the employer is not arbitrable. It is well settled that the court here "is confined to ascertaining whether the party seeking arbitration is making a claim which on its face is governed by the contract. Whether the moving party is right or wrong is a question of contract interpretation for the arbitrator." United Steelworkers of America v. American Manufacturing Co., 363 U.S. 564, 568, 80 S.Ct. 1363, 4 L.Ed.2d 1432 (1960). "Arbitration is a matter of...