New Britain Mach. Co. v. Lodge 1021, International Ass'n of Machinists
| Decision Date | 16 May 1956 |
| Citation | 122 A.2d 786,143 Conn. 399 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | The NEW BRITAIN MACHINE COMPANY v. LODGE 1021, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
William S. Gordon, Jr., Hartford, with whom was William P. Aspell, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
John N. Cole, Stamford, with whom, on the brief, was David F. Babson, Jr., Stamford, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.
The New Britain Machine Company, referred to herein as the company, brought an application under § 8161 of the General Statutes for an order to vacate an award made in an arbitration between the company and Lodge 1021 of the International Association of Machinists, referred to herein as the union. The court granted the application and vacated the award. The union has appealed. The issue presented on the appeal is whether the arbitrators exceeded their powers.
The company is a manufacturer and employs a number of workers who are represented by the union. The company entered into a contract on March 22, 1954, with the union concerning the wages, hours and working conditions of its employees belonging to the union. The contract provided a procedure for the settlement of grievances and defined a 'grievance' as 'any dispute between the parties concerning the interpretation or application' of the contract, 'including any alleged violation of it.' The procedure included a prescribed course of negotiation and arbitration for settling grievances. Concerning the powers of arbitrators, it was stated:
The contract established certain seniority rights for employees belonging to the union and stated that stewards and shop chairmen should have top seniority on shifts, and that in the event of layoffs top seniority would be accorded to stewards, shop chairmen and union officials upon request of the union. It also provided: Another term of the contract stated that no alteration or amendment of it should be binding unless made and executed in writing.
The company assigned and transferred certain of the employees in one of its departments from the operation of automatic screw machines to chucking machines. The union claimed that these assignments and transfers were not in the order of seniority. Thereupon the company, claiming that it was within its rights, prepared a written memorandum, dated April 6, 1954, of a verbal agreement made with representatives of the union which contained a procedure for assigning employees to the chucking machines. A copy of this memorandum was sent to the president and other representatives of the union. The memorandum stated that the company, using seniority, could assign automatic screw machine operators to chucker work and that if an employee refused this work he could be laid off.
Michael Fahey was an automatic screw machine operator and also knew how to operate a chucking machine. He was a member and officer of the union. The company gave him the option of either accepting an assignment to a chucking machine job or taking a layoff. Fahey claimed that as a union officer he had top seniority and should be the last screw machine operator to be assigned to a chucking machine. He refused to take the assignment. The company laid him off. The union filed a grievance protesting the layoff. When the grievance was not settled by negotiation, it was referred to arbitration under the contract. By agreement, the grievance was submitted to the arbitrators in the following form:
After a hearing, an award was made in the following language: The arbitrators filed written opinions with the award. The pertinent portion of the opinion of the majority of the board is set forth in a footnote. 1 The company claims that this opinion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Educ. of City of New Haven v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 287
...whether the agreement had been violated. No matter outside that submission may be included in the award. New Britain Machine Co. v. Lodge 1021, 143 Conn. 399, 404, 122 A.2d 786 (1956). The trial court stated that the "arbitrators found that the Board had violated the Agreement in the manner......
-
Ramos Iron Works, Inc. v. Franklin Const. Co., Inc.
...means by which they reach the award, unless the submission requires, is needless and superfluous. New Britain Machine Co. v. Lodge 1021, Ass'n of Machinists, 143 Conn. 399, 404, 122 A.2d 786.' Gary Excavating Co. v. North Haven, 160 Conn. 411, 413, 279 A.2d 543, 544." Costello Construction ......
-
L. Suzio Const. Co. v. Connecticut State Bd. of Labor Relations
...award of the state board of mediation and arbitration was not a bar to the inquiry made by the defendant. New Britain Machine Co. v. Lodge 1021, 143 Conn. 399, 404, 122 A.2d 786; American Brass Co. v. Torrington Brass Workers' Union, 141 Conn. 514, 521, 107 A.2d 255. There is error, the jud......
-
Local 1219, Intern. Ass'n of Fire Fighters v. Connecticut Labor Relations Bd.
...award of the state board of mediation and arbitration was not a bar to the inquiry made by the defendant. New Britain Machine Co. v. Lodge 1021, 143 Conn. 399, 404, 122 A.2d 786; American Brass Co. v. Torrington Brass Workers' Union, 141 Conn. 514, 521, 107 A.2d The plaintiff does not dispu......