Palnau v. Detroit Edison Company, 14698.
Decision Date | 19 April 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 14698.,14698. |
Parties | Arthur PALNAU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, a New York Corporation; Utility Workers Union of America, affiliated with AFL-CIO; and Local 223, Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Harry Riseman, Riseman, Lemke & Piotrowski, Detroit Mich., for appellant.
Richard Ford, Fischer, Sprague, Franklin & Ford, Detroit, Mich., for appellee Detroit Edison Co.
Sheldon L. Klimist, Detroit, Mich., A. L. Zwerdling, Zwerdling, Zwerdling
& Klimist, Detroit, Mich., on brief, for appellee Utility Workers Union of America, A. F. L.-C. I. O., et al.
Before CECIL, WEICK and O'SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.
Palnau, an employee of Edison, was discharged for insubordination. Pursuant to the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between Edison and the Union he appealed to the president of Edison. At the hearing on the appeal, he was represented by his personal attorney and representatives of the Union. The discharge was affirmed by the president. Thereafter Palnau was allowed unemployment compensation by the Michigan Employment Security Commission on the ground that his conduct in connection with his job had not been wilful and wanton and that Edison had failed to meet the burden of proof.
His attorney then requested arbitration of the grievance under the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Edison declined arbitration on the ground that no written request therefor had been timely made by the Union. The Union had refused to process his grievance any further.
Palnau then sued the Union and Edison in the District Court for breach of the collective bargaining agreement. He prayed for reinstatement to his former employment and compensation for lost time, or in the alternative, for specific enforcement of the arbitration provisions of the agreement and damages. He charged that the action of the Union in failing to process his grievance was "arbitrary, capricious, malicious, discriminatory, without cause and not made in good faith." Jurisdiction of the court was invoked under the provisions of Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended 29 U.S. C.A. § 185. In an amended complaint he also invoked the provisions of 29 U.S.C.A. § 159(a). The District Court granted motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Section 301 of the Act provides that "suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization * * *" may be brought in the District Court. This statute authorizes only the employer or Union to bring the suit. In the present case, jurisdiction was not invoked by either Edison or the Union.
The collective bargaining agreement did not provide for the automatic arbitration of grievances or authorize an employee to make the request therefor, but provided that either party "may" make written request within a certain time. The Union made no request for arbitration. In the absence of a timely written request by the Union for arbitration of the grievance and refusal by Edison to accede thereto, Edison could hardly be said to have violated the agreement. Section 301 does not authorize a suit against the employer or Union except for violation of the agreement. Communication Workers of America v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co., 160 F.Supp....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
RETAIL CLERKS INTERNAT'L ASS'N v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc.
...Bearing Co. v. N. L. R. B, 325 F.2d 746, 752-753, C.A. 6th, cert. denied, 376 U.S. 971, 84 S.Ct. 1135, 12 L.Ed.2d 85; Palnau v. Detroit Edison Co., 301 F.2d 702, 704, C.A. 6th; Local Union No. 787, etc. v. Collins Radio Co., 317 F.2d 214, 219-220, C.A. 5th; Procter & Gamble Independent Unio......
-
Miller v. Davis
...Cir. 1960); Rittenberry v. Lewis, 222 F.Supp. 717, 721 n. 2 (E.D.Tenn.1963), aff'd, 333 F.2d 573 (6th Cir. 1964); Palnau v. Detroit Edison Co., 301 F.2d 702 (6th Cir. 1962). It appears, however, that jurisdiction could have been alleged under 28 U.S.C. 1332 (1966), the diversity of citizens......
-
Mumford v. Glover, 73-3037
...Leskiw v. Local 1470, Electrical Workers, 3 Cir. 1972, 464 F.2d 721; Adams v. Budd Co., 3 Cir. 1965, 349 F.2d 368; Palnau v. Detroit Edison Co., 6 Cir. 1962, 301 F.2d 702. This Court has held, however, that federal jurisdiction may be sustained when granted by a federal statute even if the ......
-
Collins v. TRUSTEES OF LOCAL 478 TRUCKING & ALLIED
...by a Federal district court.'" Id. (citation omitted); see Adams v. Budd Co., 349 F.2d 368 (3d Cir. 1965); Palnau v. Detroit Edison Co., 301 F.2d 702 (6th Cir. 1962); accord, Austin v. Calhoon, 360 F.Supp. 515, 517 (S.D.N.Y.1973); Beam v. Int'l Organization of Masters, M., & P., 511 F.2d 97......