Newspaper Guild of Pawtucket v. Times Publishing Co., Civ. A. No. 1788.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1955
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 1788.
• Parties: The NEWSPAPER GUILD OF PAWTUCKET, Plaintiff, v. TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

131 F. Supp. 499

The NEWSPAPER GUILD OF PAWTUCKET, Plaintiff, v. TIMES PUBLISHING COMPANY, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 1788.

United States District Court D. Rhode Island.

May 18, 1955.

Albert J. Hoban, Providence, R. I., for plaintiff.

Edward Winslow Lincoln, Matthew W. Goring, Stephen B. Ives, Jr., Providence, R. I., for defendant.

Michaelson & Stanzler, Julius C. Michaelson, Providence, R. I., as amici curiae.

DAY, District Judge.

In this action the plaintiff, a labor organization representing certain employees of the defendant, seeks a declaratory judgment and certain injunctive relief against the defendant. Jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine this controversy is alleged to exist under the provisions of Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185.

In its complaint the plaintiff alleges that it and the defendant are parties to a certain collective bargaining agreement effective from December 22, 1953, to December 21, 1955, which was in effect at the time of the filing of the complaint, a copy of said agreement being annexed to said complaint and made a part thereof; that in accordance with Section XIX of said agreement it gave notice in writing on February 1, 1954, to the defendant of its desire to initiate negotiations with the defendant, said section providing that at any time within 60 days after December 22, 1953, either of the parties may initiate negotiations once for the sole purpose of discussing the question as to whether there shall be a general wage increase or decrease or an increase or decrease in any or all of the minimum weekly salaries set forth in Article IV of said agreement; that such negotiations followed and that the parties hereto were unable to reach an agreement; that on October 7, 1954, the plaintiff then moved pursuant to said agreement to establish a Board of Arbitration to arbitrate the questions of whether there should be a general increase and increases in the minimum salaries provided in said agreement; that on October 13, 1954, the defendant, contrary to the provisions of said agreement, refused to select a member of said Board of Arbitration and has since continuously refused to do so. The complaint asks this Court for a declaratory judgment that the defendant is required to select a member of said Board of Arbitration and to proceed to arbitrate these questions of salary increases; and for an injunction enjoining the defendant from violating its agreement with the plaintiff and ordering it to proceed forthwith to arbitrate said questions in accordance with said agreement.

The matter is now before me for decision on the defendant's motion to dismiss or (in the alternative) for summary judgment, and upon the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. There is no genuine issue between the parties as to any material fact alleged in the complaint. In support of its motion the defendant contends that the dispute between the parties does not present an arbitrable question under the terms of the agreement between the parties — in other words, does not present a question which the parties intended would be submitted to arbitration.

Neither of the parties has questioned the jurisdiction of this Court to compel specific performance of an agreement to arbitrate. In fact, it is clear that they have assumed that this Court has the power to do so. Apparently they have interpreted the language in my opinion in Industrial Trades Union of America v. Woonsocket Dyeing...