Mello v. Local 4408 C. I. O. United Steel Workers of America, 2222
| Decision Date | 11 June 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 2222,2222 |
| Parties | MELLO v. LOCAL 4408 C.I.O. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA et al. Equity |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
John Quattrocchi, Jr., Providence, for complainant.
Michaelson & Stanzler, Milton Stanzler, Providence, for respondents Local 4408 C.I.O. United Steelworkers of America and Sidney L. Larson.
Hinckley, Allen, Salisbury & Parsons, Matthew W. Goring, Stephen B. Ives, Jr., Providence, for respondent Nicholson File Co.
This amended bill in equity was brought by a discharged employee of the Nicholson File Company, one of the respondents, to obtain reinstatement in his former position with such corporation and for certain other incidental relief in that connection. The other respondents are Local 4408 C.I.O. United Steelworkers of America, a labor union representing the employees in said corporation's plant in Providence, and Sidney L. Larson, individually and as business agent of such Local. This proceeding was before the superior court on respondents' demurrers to the bill of complaint. The trial justice sustained the demurrers and dismissed the bill as to all respondents. From the entry of decrees to that effect complainant duly prosecuted his appeal to this court.
A general summary of the bill shows the following pertinent allegations: That the complainant, a skilled laborer, had been an employee of the above-mentioned corporation for about fifteen years; that he was a member in good standing of Local 4408; that about September 12, 1950 an agreement was made between said corporation and the United Steelworkers of America whereby complainant as a member of said union and as an employee of the corporation received certain rights and benefits; that on January 7, 1952 he was discharged without just cause by his employer on the ground, among others, that he had been involved in bookmaking in his place of employment; and that he denied having been so involved.
He further alleged that he requested an adjustment of his grievances under articles X and XIV of the agreement hereinbefore referred to; that the provisions of those articles, both of which are set out in the amended bill, were not complied with by Local 4408 and the Nicholson File Company; that said articles were for his benefit; and that he exhausted his remedies thereunder by complying with their provisions and by attempting to invoke the grievance and other procedures as set out therein.
In addition complainant alleged that about February 26, 1952 at a regular meeting of Local 4408 respondent Sidney L. Larson and two other officers of said Local presided; that a discussion arose as to whether the union should go to arbitration, under the provisions of article XIV, to protect complainant's rights; that without any vote having been taken by the union members it was decided by the three officers presiding that no arbitration between the union and the employer was required; that because of the failure on the part of Local 4408 and the Nicholson File Company to comply with the terms of the agreement complainant was deprived of his valuable job; that he asked the union officials to process his grievance to arbitration and to submit that issue to the union members but neither was done; and that thereafter he attempted to exhaust his remedies under the constitution and by-laws of Local 4408 by claiming an appeal to the International Union and the International Executive Board under the proper provisions of its constitution, but that the union and the board and its representatives refused or failed to hear the same and said appeal was futile.
Article X of the agreement was entitled 'Discharges and Discipline.' It contains among others the following provisions:
'(a) The Company shall have the unquestioned right to discharge or discipline any employee at any time within sixty (60) days after the commencement of his employment, said sixty-day period to be deemed a probationary period.
'(b) The Company will notify the Union immediately upon discharge of an employee and written notice will be given to the Union by the Company not later than one working day following such discharge giving reasons for said discharge.
* * *
* * *
'(d) In the event that the Union claims that the discharge or discipline of any employee, other than a probationary employee, has been without just cause, and if after compliance with the procedure for the adjustment of grievances set forth in Article XIV hereof commencing with Step 3 thereof it shall be determined that such discharge or discipline was without just cause, said employee shall be forthwith re-instated in employment by the Company and shall be paid retroactive pay to the date of his discharge or discipline * * *.'
Article XIV of the agreement was termed 'Adjustment Of Grievances' and contains the following language:
'(a) A grievance is defined as any controversy between the Company and the Union or between the Company and its employees covered by this Agreement as to (a) hours, wages and working conditions, or (b) a charge of violation of this Agreement, but not any controversy as to questions involving changes in the terms and provisions of this Agreement.
'Should any grievance arise in the Company's plant, both parties agree that an earnest effort shall be made to settle such grievance immediately in the following manner * * *.'
Five steps to be taken thereunder are then set out leading up to an arbitration of any difficulty.
The decrees appealed from sustained the demurrers to the amended bill of complaint on the grounds that it set forth no cause for relief in equity and did not show that complainant was without an adequate remedy at law.
The complainant contends that although he is not a party to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Falsetti v. Local Union No. 2026, United Mine Workers of America
...Inc., 1953, 330 Mass. 352, 113 N.E.2d 450; Glass v. Hoblitzelle, Tex.Civ.App.1935, 83 S.W.2d 796, 802; Mello v. Local 4408 C.I.O. United Steelworkers, 1954, 82 R.I. 60, 105 A.2d 806; Cone v. Union Oil Co., 1954, 129 Cal.App. 558, 564, 277 P.2d 464, 468; Miller v. Johnstown Traction Co., 195......
-
Belk v. Allied Aviation Service Co. of New Jersey, Inc.
...v. Voges, 124 F.Supp. 543 (E.D.N.Y.1954); Parker v. Borock, 5 N.Y.2d 156, 182 N.Y.S.2d 577, 156 N.E.2d 297 (1959); Mellow v. Local 4408, 82 R.I. 60, 105 A.2d 806 (1954). See generally Cox, Rights Under a Labor Agreement, 69 Harv.L.Rev. 601, 645-655 (1956). A minority of courts have held to ......
-
Ostrofsky v. United Steelworkers of America
...84 N.W.2d 523, 529. See also Jenkins v. William Schluderberg-T. J. Kurdle Co., 217 Md. 556, 144 A.2d 88; Mello v. Local 4408, C.I.O. United Steelworkers, 82 R.I. 60, 105 A. 2d 806; United States v. Voges, D.C.E. D.N.Y., 124 F.Supp. 543; Terrell v. Local Lodge 758, Int'l Ass'n of Machinists,......
-
Jenkins v. Wm. Schluderberg-T. J. Kurdle Co.
...confident that such a result was not within the contemplation of the parties to the agreement.' (Emphasis added.) In Mello v. Local 4408, 1954, 82 R.I. 60, 105 A.2d 806, a discharged employee was not permitted to maintain an action against his employer and union where the union officers had......