Streeter v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 05 April 1955 |
| Citation | 269 Wis. 412,69 N.W.2d 583 |
| Parties | Donald STREETER, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION and Marathon Electric Mfg. Co., Respondents. Myron F. WEILAND, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION and Marathon Electric Mfg. Co., Respondents. Emil MUELVER, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION and Marathon Electric Mfg. Co., Respondents. William C. BEHREND, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION and Marathon Electric Mfg. Co., Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
M. Michael Essin, Milwaukee, for appellants.
Arnold J. Spencer and Austin T. Thorson, Madison, for Industrial Comm.
Counsel for the four employee plaintiffs contends that the employer could not rely on the provision of the collective bargaining contract authorizing it to discharge employees who engaged in an unauthorized work stoppage and fail to abide by another clause of the contract which provided for arbitration of discharges. It is counsel's further position that disciplinary discharges for work stoppages are not effective until arbitrated, if arbitration has been requested. It is undisputed that the Union did request arbitration of the discharges and that employer ignored such request.
These contentions require analysis of the applicable provisions of the collective bargaining agreement in effect between the employer and the Union when the work stoppage and walkout occurred. The pertinent article of such agreement provided as follows:
'Article XII. No Strike or Restriction of Output.
'1. In view of the orderly procedure outlined in this agreement, the Union will not authorize or sanction any strike, stoppage, slow-down or restriction of out-put and the Company will not lockout the employees.
'2. There shall be no interference with any reasonable management order, and the work shall proceed as directed, but if the Union believes such order to be contrary to any provision of this agreement then the matter may be taken up as a regular grievance.
'3. In case any such action as outlined in paragraph (1) and (2) shall occur in violation of the above, any or all of the employees taking part will be subject to discipline or discharge.
Insofar as the effect which arbitration would have on a discharge made by the employer is concerned, we construe the contract as meaning that the discharge is effective until reversed by the arbitrator, and not that the discharge is ineffective until passed upon by the arbitrator. Sec. 6, Art. XII, of the agreement, has no legal significance with respect to the issue confronting us on this appeal. Its purpose was solely to relieve the union of its 'no strike' pledge and the employer of its 'no lockout' pledge in the event that an arbitrator should rule that an issue was arbitrable under the agreement and either party refused to arbitrate. It had no relevance to an issue upon which the arbitrator had not acted.
Apparently it is the theory of counsel for the plaintiffs that because the contract was entire and not severable, the employer's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Worcester Telegram Pub. Co. v. Director of Division of Employment Sec.
...171 Pa.Super. 303, 307-311, 90 A.2d 322; Milne Chair Co. v. Hake, 190 Tenn. 395, 404, 405-406, 230 S.W.2d 393; Streeter v. Industrial Comm., 269 Wis. 412, 69 N.W.2d 583.7 The local union president also testified that the claimants were not employees of either the local union or the internat......
-
Heitzenrater's Claim, In re
...Security, 333 Mass. 244, 130 N.E.2d 108; Bogue Elec. Co. v. Board of Review, 21 N.J. 431, 122 A.2d 615, and Streeter v. Industrial Comm., 269 Wis. 412, 69 N.W.2d 583 (benefits ...
-
Lillard v. Michigan Employment Sec. Commission, 21
...outlined in the collective bargaining agreement should be followed in accordance with its obvious purpose. In Streeter v. Industrial Commission, 269 Wis. 412, 69 N.W.2d 583, 585, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin had before it a case analogous on its facts to the instant controversy. A collect......
-
Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. v. Oszust
...v. Emp. Security Dept. (1974), 10 Wash.App. 437, 517 P.2d 973; Kisamore v. Rutledge (W.Va.1981), 276 S.E.2d 821; Streeter v. Indus. Comm. (1955), 269 Wis. 412, 69 N.W.2d 583. See, also, Midgett v. Sackett-Chicago, Inc. (1984), 105 Ill.2d 143, 85 Ill.Dec. 475, 473 N.E.2d 1280; Metro. Distrib......