Rochester Independent Workers, Local No. 1 v. General Dynamics Electronics Division
| Decision Date | 28 August 1967 |
| Citation | 282 N.Y.S.2d 804,54 Misc.2d 470 |
| Parties | ROCHESTER INDEPENDENT WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 1, Petitioner, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS/ELECTRONICS DIVISION, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
This is a motion by the petitioner, Rochester Independent Workers, Local No. 1 (Union), to compel the respondent, General Dynamics/Electronics Division (Company), to arbitrate a grievance concerning 'the reduction in force and lay off which is in effect as of April 14, 1967, and the transfer and assignment of work out of the RIW Bargaining Unit which is contributory to this lay off and/or its continuation' (Exhibit B, Grievance Form, dated April 14, 1967).
The facts giving rise to the controversy are substantially undisputed. General Dynamics Corporation is comprised of ten separate divisions of which the Electronics Division is one. The Company has three separate operations in the Electronics Division. One is located in Rochester, New York, another in Orlando, Florida, and the one whose subcontracting work gave rise to this grievance is located in San Diego, California.
The affidavit of Fred L. Gagnon, Vice President of Manufacturing for the Electronics Division of General Dynamics, sets forth the background of this dispute. The Fort Worth, Texas, Division of General Dynamics has had for some time a substantial contract with the United States Department of Defense for the delivery of F--111 aircraft and various associated items of support equipment, among which are substantial quantities of 'test stations' that include combinations of 'test replaceable units' (TRUs). The TRUs have always been assembled in Rochester, New York, at respondent's plant.
In early November, 1966, the Company decided that in order to meet the required delivery dates for the test stations, it would be necessary for the Rochester operation to subcontract to the San Diego operation the final assembly of 300 TRUs. Thereupon in December, 1966, San Diego personnel were brought in to assist in assembling material and parts into the 300 kits for shipment to San Diego.
In March, 1967, Mr. Gagnon avers, the Fort Worth Division 'experienced a stretch out * * * and as a result * * * delivery dates * * * of the test stations were extended for * * * three or four months' (affidavit of Fred L. Gagnon, p. 3). Thereafter, on April 14, 1967, about 100 employees were laid off in Rochester, and the grievance which the Union seeks to arbitrate was filed.
The Union claims Article I (Recognition) and Article II (Management Rights) of the five-year agreement between the parties, which is effective from March 20, 1965, through March 19, 1970, were 'violated' by the Company.
The Company in Article I (Recognition of the agreement between it and the Union 'recognizes the Union as the exclusive representative for purposes of collective bargaining with respect to hours of work, rates of pay, and other conditions of employment covered by this Agreement' for all its employees.
Article II (Management Rights) of the agreement, with which we are particularly concerned on this motion, states:
'By way of illustration but not by way of limitation of the Company's rights, functions, and prerogatives as stated above, the Company specifically reserves the right to hire, suspend, promote or demote, discipline or discharge, classify or transfer, and relieve employees from duty, subcontract work, transfer and/or assign work, determine the place work will be performed, determine the number and location of its plants and extend, limit, or curtail its operations or any part thereof.'
Article XIV of the Agreement sets forth the 'Grievance Procedure' in five steps. Step V has to do with arbitration. The jurisdiction of the arbitrator is fixed in subdivision (d) thereof as follows:
Article XXII (Complete Agreement) provides as follows:
'It is the intent of the parties hereto that the provisions of this Agreement, which supersede all prior agreements and understandings, oral or written, expressed or implied, between such parties, shall govern their entire relationship and shall be the sole source of any and all rights or claims which may be asserted in arbitration hereunder or otherwise.
'Therefore, each party agrees that, for the life of this Agreement, the other shall not be obligated to bargain, negotiate, consult or notify with respect to Management Rights (Article II, Management Rights) or to any matters pertaining to rates of pay, wages, hours or other terms or conditions of employment, whether or not covered by this Agreement or in negotiations leading hereto, except as notification or consultation is explicitly required by the provisions of this Agreement.
'Additionally, no abrogation or modification of the provisions of this Agreement is granted by implication, past practice, or action of either party during the life of this Agreement, unless such abrogation or modification is mutually agreed to, reduced to writing, and signed by representatives of the parties.'
The question to be decided against this background of facts as prescribed by the applicable terms of the agreement between the Union and the Company is whether the grievance against subcontracting is arbitrable. I hold that it is not, for the reasons hereinafter expressed.
Because of the interstate character of the Company's business, the federal court decisions are controlling here (Local 174 Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95, 82 S.Ct. 571, 7 L.Ed.2d 593; Matter of Long Is. Lbr. Co. (Martin), 15 N.Y.2d 380, 259 N.Y.S.2d 142, 207 N.E.2d 190).
The Union contends that Article II (Management Rights) and specifically that portion which 'reserves the right to * * * sub-contract work, transfer and/or assign work, determine the place work will be performed' (italics supplied) is subject to the grievance procedure, despite the language herein quoted. I do not so view it.
Article II is clear when it says, 'All the rights, functions, and prerogatives of management and the exercise thereof, Which are not expressly modified by one or more specific provisions of this Agreement, are reserved * * * to the Company and are not subject to the Grievance Procedure, arbitration or negotiation' (italics supplied). The subsequent modification in the agreement whereby some prerogatives of management may be arbitrated does not affect those prerogatives which are specifically excluded from arbitration.
The Union says that some of these prerogatives of management are 'expressly modified' in certain respects and are thereby included in the grievance procedure, despite the exclusionary language of Article II. Petitioner argues that Articles IV, V, X, and XVI of the agreement set forth several of these areas. However, the right to 'sub-contract work, transfer and/or assign work', and the right to 'determine the place work will be performed' (italics supplied) are reserved to the exclusive control of management and are, by Article II, specifically excluded from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bielmeyer
... ... that in March of 1959 there were a total of 1,156,644 laws on the United States federal and ... [54 Misc.2d 468] Briefly, what then is the general nature and scope of police power? ... ...