Paterson Parchment P. Co. v. International Brotherhood, 10425.
| Decision Date | 01 August 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 10425.,10425. |
| Parties | PATERSON PARCHMENT PAPER CO. v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAPER MAKERS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
George E. Beechwood, Philadelphia, Pa. (Conlen, LaBrum & Beechwood, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.
Louis H. Wilderman, Philadelphia, Pa. (Richard H. Markowitz, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
The Paterson Parchment Paper Company has appealed from a judgment dismissing its action brought under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185, against the International Brotherhood of Paper Makers and its Bristol Local #500 for damages arising out of an alleged breach of a collective labor agreement. The alleged breach was a strike, called on August 20, 1948, which shut plaintiff's plant down until November 20, 1948, with resultant serious loss to plaintiff. The contract was a comprehensive and detailed agreement covering the field of employment and labor relations at plaintiff's plant. It contained an express covenant not to strike. It was executed and to be performed in Pennsylvania and we construe it in accordance with Pennsylvania law.
The principal issue now before us is whether the contract was still in effect on the date of the strike's commencement. The defendants claim that it had terminated by virtue of a notice sent by them on June 1.
The controlling provisions of the contract read as follows:
The defendants contend that the following written notice given by the Regional Director of the parent union on June 1, 1948 was sufficient under this contract to terminate it on August 15, 1948:
To this letter the company respondent on June 7, 1948:
The union's letter states that it is tendered as "notification in compliance to the sixty (60) days notice stipulation." This clearly means notice of termination under Section 15 of the contract. Plaintiff has attempted to make this meaning doubtful. But in the circumstances we find nothing except Section 15 to which this language can sensibly refer.
Intended as notice of termination, the words used are adequate for the purpose. It is true the notice envisages a continuing labor-management relationship between the parties, but under a new contract to be negotiated in the two months available before expiration of the old contract. As concerns the old contract, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thornton v. Victor Meat Co.
...615, 618--619; Local Union No. 998, etc. v. B. & T. Metals Co., supra, 315 F.2d 432, 436--437; and Paterson Parchment Paper Co. v. International Brotherhood (3 Cir. 1951) 191 F.2d 252, 254 (cert. den. (1952) 342 U.S. 933, 72 S.Ct. 376, 96 L.Ed. 694, rehearing denied (1952) 342 U.S. 956, 72 ......
-
Lincoln Mills of Ala. v. Textile Workers Union
...obligations of the contract ceased to exist. For this reason the complaint was properly dismissed". Paterson Parchment Paper Co. v. International Brotherhood, 3 Cir., 1951, 191 F.2d 252, 254. Finding as we do that compliance with a covenant for arbitration in a collective bargaining agreeme......
-
Textile Workers Union v. American Thread Co.
...see Mercury Oil Refining Co. v. Oil Workers International Union, 10 Cir., 187 F.2d 980, 983; Paterson Parchment Paper Co. v. International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, 3 Cir., 191 F.2d 252, 253, certiorari denied, 342 U.S. 933, 72 S.Ct. 376, 96 L.Ed. 694. This construction presents no const......
-
Connecticut Co. v. Division 425 of Amalgamated Ass'n of St., Elec. Ry. and Motor Coach Emp. of America
...relationships, but under an entirely new contract which was thereafter to be negotiated. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. v. International Brotherhood, 3 Cir., 191 F.2d 252, 254, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 933, 72 S.Ct. 376, 96 L.Ed. 694, rehearing denied 342 U.S. 956, 72 S.Ct. 625, 96 L.Ed. 71......