NEWARK STEREOTYPERS'UNION v. Newark Morning Ledger Co.

• Decision Date: 19 December 1966
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 1186-65.
• Citation: 261 F. Supp. 832
• Parties: NEWARK STEREOTYPERS' UNION NO. 18, etc., Plaintiff, v. NEWARK MORNING LEDGER CO. and Newark Newspaper Publishers Association, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

261 F. Supp. 832

NEWARK STEREOTYPERS' UNION NO. 18, etc., Plaintiff, v. NEWARK MORNING LEDGER CO. and Newark Newspaper Publishers Association, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 1186-65.

United States District Court D. New Jersey.

December 19, 1966.

Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, Newark, N. J., Skadden, Arps, State, Meagher & Flom, New York City, by Thomas L. Morrissey, Newark, N. J., William R. Meagher, New York City, John F. Ferrick, Cambridge, Mass., Hugh J. Kelly, Scarsdale, N. Y., for plaintiff.

Shanley & Fisher, by Donald A. Robinson, David S. Cramp, Newark, N. J., Goldman, Evans & Goldman, by Tobias J. Berman, New York City, for defendants.

OPINION

WORTENDYKE, District Judge:

This is an action upon cross-motions; the defendants moving for an Order confirming the arbitration award, the plaintiff moving for an Order vacating the award.

Plaintiff Labor Union (hereinafter Union), predicating jurisdiction on Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, filed its Complaint in this Court seeking a judgment against defendant-employer (hereinafter Ledger) to compel arbitration of the question of the number of employees who should be assigned to the operation of a stereotype plate-casting (M.A.N.) machine which was being installed by the Ledger in its newspaper printing plant in Newark, New Jersey. A Collective Bargaining Agreement (hereinafter Agreement) between the Union and defendant Newark Newspaper Publishers Association, acting on behalf of the Ledger, was in effect at all pertinent times hereinafter referred to. The Agreement governed conditions of employment of members of the Union by the Ledger. Section 26 of the Agreement provides as follows:

"Section 26

A Joint Standing Committee, should necessity arise, shall be formed, two to be appointed by the Publishers and two by the Union and the four so appointed, if unable to agree, shall select a fifth member who shall act as chairman. This Committee shall interpret any of the terms or conditions of this contract, should controversy arise concerning them, and shall have complete jurisdiction to adjudicate finally any and all disputes, including discharge cases, which are alleged to involve the interests of either party as defined in this contract. Under all circumstances work in the stereotyping room of the Publishers shall be continued without interference or interruption in a regular and orderly manner until all differences under the contract are settled by conciliation or arbitration. All majority decisions of the Standing Committee shall be final and binding upon both parties."

The Complaint alleged that in June, 1965, a question arose between the Union and the defendants regarding the number of men to be assigned to the M.A.N. machine. Each party to the Agreement appointed its representatives in accordance with Section 26, but the appointees of the parties were unable to resolve their disagreement respecting the manning of the machine, and they were also unable to agree upon an impartial chairman for the Joint Standing Committee (hereinafter Committee). Because of the inability of the parties to agree upon an arbitrator to act as Chairman of the Committee, and the absence of any provision in the Agreement dispositive of the consequent impasse, this Court was requested by the parties to designate and appoint such an arbitrator in order to effectuate the arbitration clause in the Agreement. The cause having come duly to issue upon the Amended Complaint and Answer thereto, summary judgment for the Union was entered by this Court's Order of December 23, 1965. That Order provided: (1) that the dispute as to the number of journeymen stereotypers who should be assigned to the operation of the M.A.N. machine was arbitrable under the Agreement; (2) that the Honorable Harry Heher (a retired Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court) be designated as Chairman of the Committee provided for in Section 26 of the Agreement; (3) that the parties proceed to arbitrate their dispute before the Committee; and (4) that the fee and expense of the Chairman of the Committee be borne equally by plaintiff and defendants. The Court retained jurisdiction of the cause to enable either party to apply for such other or further relief as might be necessary and proper.

The parties proceeded with the arbitration as ordered. On June 30, 1966, the Committee filed with the Clerk of this Court, a written "Decision and Determination of Dispute" signed and concurred in by a majority of the Committee upon written Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and the evidentiary record of proceedings before it which constituted the arbitration award upon the dispute submitted by the parties. That award is as follows:

"Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record in this proceeding, the Joint Standing Committee makes the following resolution of the Dispute, and the Arbitration Award:

(1) The Star-Ledger Company has determined to use only one journeyman stereotyper in the operation of its M.A.N. Machine; and this determination is pursuant to the Star-Ledger's management prerogative,

(2) The Star-Ledger's Contract with the Union does not bar this determination;

(3) The Star-Ledger's shop practice does not bar this determination;

(4) The industry practice does not bar this determination;

(5) This determination is not in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, but is in full accord with the essence of the provisions;

(6) One-man operation of the given M.A.N. Machine is safe, efficient and not unduly burdensome on the single stereotyper of the Union; and

(7) One-man operation of the M.A. N. Machine is proper and valid and effective in the Newark Star Ledger plant, and in keeping with all reasonable requirements."

The Ledger has moved this Court for an Order confirming the arbitration award. The Union has moved the Court for an Order vacating the award upon the following grounds:

"(1) Because a majority of the Joint Standing Committee refused to accept evidence of alleged witness-tampering by Ledger, thereby depriving Union of due process of law;

(2) Because the Award was a result of corruption, fraud or undue means;

(3) Because the Joint Standing Committee exceeded its powers as arbitrators by `redeciding' the question of arbitrability of the dispute submitted."

In support of its motion to confirm the Award, the Ledger contends that the grounds urged for vacation thereof are insufficient in law and without support in the record or the affidavits submitted upon the cross-motions.

This Court's duty in the face of the confronting motion to vacate the award is prescribed by the United States Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Section 10 of that Act authorizes the Court to make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration:

"(a) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.

(b) Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them.

(c) Where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.

(d) Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made."

These statutory grounds for vacating an award must be read in the light of the rule that the Court's function in vacating, or confirming, an arbitration award is "severely limited". Amicizia Societa Navegazione v. Chilean Nitrate & Iodine Sales Corp., 274 F.2d 805, 808 (2nd Cir. 1960) cert. denied 363 U.S. 843, 80 S.Ct. 1612, 4 L.Ed.2d 1727 (1960). To warrant vacating the award in this case, upon the statutory grounds asserted, the Union must "* * * clearly demonstrate that the Committee's award amounted to a `manifest disregard'<sup>1</sup> of the law or `manifests an infidelity' to the Committee's obligation to interpret and apply the collective bargaining agreement."² Metal Products Workers Union, Local 1645, UAW-AFL-CIO v. Torrington Co., 242 F.Supp. 813, 819 (D.Conn. 1965) aff'd 358 F.2d 103 (2nd Cir. 1966).

It is the general rule that the courts will refuse to review the merits of an arbitration award. United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 596, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960); United Steelworkers of America v. American Manufacturing Co., 363 U.S. 564, 568, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1960). It is true that the arbitrator is not free to "* * * dispense his own brand of industrial justice", United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., supra at 597, 80 S.Ct. at 1361, but his interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement, and the arbitration which flows from such collective bargaining agreement, will not be questioned by the courts where the arbitrator has authority to act. Western Iowa Pork Co. v. National Brotherhood Packinghouse & Dairy Workers, Local No. 52, 366 F.2d 275, 277 (8th Cir. 1966); See Torrington Co. v. Metal Products Workers Union Local 1645, 362 F.2d 677, 682 (2nd Cir. 1966); Local 7-644, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO v. Mobil Oil Co., 350 F.2d 708, 712 (7th Cir. 1965) reh. denied September 9, 1965, cert. denied 382 U.S. 986, 86 S.Ct. 563, 15 L.Ed.2d 474 (1966). The award may not be examined for alleged mistakes of law and erroneous evaluation of evidence. Ficek v. Southern Pacific Company, 338 F.2d 655, 657 (9th Cir. 1964) reh. denied December 22, 1964, cert. denied 380 U.S. 988, 85 S.Ct. 1362, 14 L.Ed.2d 280 (1965), citing Bower v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 214 F.2d 623, 626-627 (3rd Cir. 1954); See Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 1386 v. American Thread Co., 291 F.2d 894, 896 (4th Cir. 1961).

"The law favors arbitration and it has

...