Slenczka v. HOOVER BALL & BEAR. CO., UNIVERSAL WIRE SP. DIV.
| Decision Date | 30 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 37334. |
| Citation | 215 F. Supp. 761 |
| Parties | Joseph SLENCZKA et al., Plaintiffs, v. The HOOVER BALL AND BEARING COMPANY, UNIVERSAL WIRE SPRING DIVISION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Julien C. Renswick and Day & Berkman, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiffs.
Russell Leasure, Cleveland, Ohio, and Clark, Klein, Winter, Parsons & Prewitt, Detroit, Mich., Baker, Hostetler & Patterson, Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel, for defendant.
Since about the year 1939 there was in existence in the Cleveland area a manufacturing company known as the Universal Wire Spring. Through the years it underwent changes in form and variations in name. At the time pertinent to this lawsuit it was legally known as the Universal Wire Spring Division of the Hoover Ball and Bearing Company. (Universal).
Since 1941 the Universal employees have been organized in a union which has been the recognized collective bargaining agent for said employees. The union has undergone changes in name and form since 1941. At the time pertinent to this lawsuit Local Union No. 312 of the International Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL-CIO, was the bargaining agent for the Universal employees. (Union).
This action arises out of the closing by defendant of its Universal Division plant at Bedford, Ohio, in September, 1961, and shifting of its manufacturing operations to a new plant site at Georgetown, Kentucky. The plaintiffs requested that defendant transfer them to the Georgetown, Kentucky plant on a basis which would give recognition to the years of seniority which each of them had acquired while in the employ of the Universal Division. These requests were made prior to the closing of the Bedford, Ohio plant, and were refused by defendant.
The facts in this case, as recited in the pleadings are as follows:
Plaintiffs were employees of defendant at its Universal Division plant at Bedford, Ohio. Plaintiffs' collective bargaining representative (Union) had negotiated a series of bargaining agreements with Universal. The last of these agreements was in August, 1959, and covered a period from August 23, 1959 to and including August 23, 1961.
The first paragraph of the agreement provided that, in addition to the company's plant at Solon Road, Wenso Road, Bedford, Ohio, "This agreement is also binding if any existing operation is moved within a sixty (60) mile radius."
On December 8, 1960 defendant informed its employees, including plaintiffs, that its manufacturing operations at the Bedford, Ohio plant would be terminated in August of 1961 and that the August 23, 1959 collective bargaining agreement would be terminated upon termination of the employment of all employees. The notice of the closing of manufacturing operations at the Bedford, Ohio plant informed the employees that further operations of this plant would be economically unsound; and that the company intended to move its manufacturing operations to a plant located in another state.
Thereafter on January 30, 1961 the employees' collective bargaining representative (Union) and the defendant after a period of negotiations entered into a termination agreement which set forth in some detail the manner in which the rights, privileges, benefits and duties of the employees, including plaintiffs herein, the Union, and the defendant company were to be handled.
The terms and conditions of this agreement pertinent to this action are as follows:
Thereafter, in September of 1961, the shutdown of defendant's Bedford, Ohio plant was completed and the defendant transferred manufacturing operations to a new plant site at Georgetown, Kentucky. Machinery used at defendant's plant in Bedford, Ohio was removed and transferred to the new plant in Georgetown, Kentucky.
Prior to the closing of the Bedford plant the individual plaintiffs, by letters dated July 18, 1961, to defendant, requested transfers to the Georgetown, Kentucky plant on the basis of seniority acquired at the Bedford, Ohio plant.
Defendant on July 24, 1961, wrote to plaintiffs advising in substance that their seniority rights had been terminated by the agreement of January 30, 1961, and that they could make application for employment at the Georgetown, Kentucky plant if they desired.
This action seeks damages from defendant as a result of defendant's refusal to transfer plaintiffs to the new Georgetown, Kentucky plant on a seniority basis.
Defendant has moved for a judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary judgment, which in this instance is tantamount to a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, as there is nothing before the Court except the pleadings and exhibits appended thereto.
Defendant in its answer set up the following defenses:
The first question before the Court is whether plaintiffs acquired transferable seniority rights as a consequence of their employment by Universal.
An employee does not acquire seniority rights simply by virtue of his employment. Any such rights are created and limited by the collective bargaining agreements made between the chosen representative of the workers and the employer. Elder v. New York Central RR Co., 152 F.2d 361, 364 (CA 6, 1945).
The collective bargaining agreement between Universal and the Union, entered into on August 23, 1959, contained the following preamble:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Union, United Auto. Aerospace and Agr. Implement Workers of America, U.A.W. v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., Thermotech Div.
...aff'd, 365 F.2d 448 (8th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 957, 87 S.Ct. 1026, 18 L.Ed.2d 105 (1967); Slenczka v. Hoover Ball and Bearing Co., 215 F.Supp. 761, 763-765 (N.D.Ohio 1963). This rule is even more appropriate where, as here, there is a merger of two plants in a third location re......
-
Neal v. Reliance Elec. & Engineering Co.
...denying the vestedright theory are: Giordano v. Mack Trucks, Inc. (D.C.N.J., 1962), 203 F.Supp. 905; Slenczka v. Hoover Ball and Bearing Co. (N.D.Ohio E.D., 1963), 215 F.Supp. 761; Panza v. Armco Steel Corp. (W.D.Pa., 1962), 208 F.Supp. 50; Colbert v. Brotherhod of Railroad, trainmen (9 Cir......
-
LOCAL 1251 INT. U. OF UA, A. & AIW v. Robertshaw Controls Co.
...aff'd, 365 F.2d 448 (8th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 957, 87 S. Ct. 1026, 18 L.Ed.2d 105 (1967); Slenczka v. Hoover Ball and Bearing Co., 215 F.Supp. 761 (N.D.Ohio 1963). But see Thompson Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, 243 F.Supp. 261, 268-270 (E.D.So.Car.1965), aff'd, 367 F.2d......
-
Archer-Daniels-Midland v. Intern. Longshoremen's, No. 3:02 CV 7619.
...Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of Am. v. N. Telecom, Inc., 434 F.Supp. 331(E.D.Mich.1977); Slenczka v. Hoover Ball and Bearing Co., 215 F.Supp. 761 (N.D.Ohio 1963). In Oddie, the court reversed the district court, and rejected the plaintiff union members' argument that the CBA......