United Elec. Radio and Mach. Workers of America Local 235 v. Union Mfg. Co.
| Citation | 141 A.2d 479,145 Conn. 285 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 07 May 1958 |
| Parties | UNITED ELECTRICAL RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 235 v. UNION MANUFACTURING COMPANY. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Jose M. Calhoun, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
Samuel Gruber, Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).
The plaintiff, a labor union local, and the defendant company, which employed the plaintiff's members, entered into a collective bargaining agreement on November 4, 1955. It provided that either party could reopen the agreement once for the purpose of discussing wages or group insurance or both. The agreement was to become effective upon its date and was to remain in force for one year 'and thereafter for successive yearly periods unless notice is given by either party to the other at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of any such annual period of its desire to modify, amend or terminate at the expiration of the annual period, within which such notice is given.' Any grievance not settled in a grievance procedure and 'involving interpretation or application of the terms' of the agreement could be submitted to arbitration, the panel to be composed of three arbitrators. The agreement contained this specific statement with reference to the power of the arbitrators In April, 1956, the plaintiff exercised its right to reopen the contract for a discussion of wages and group insurance. The parties reached a settlement, and the agreement continued in force for a second annual period ending on November 4, 1957. In April, 1957, the plaintiff requested a reopening of the contract and the defendant refused. Thereupon the parties, acting under the provisions of the contract, submitted the following issue to arbitration: 'Under * * * the Agreement dated November 4th, 1955, does the Union have the right to reopen the Agreement for the negotiation of wages and/or group insurance as of April 1, 1957?' The award, concurred in by a majority of the three arbitrators, was that the plaintiff did 'not have the right to reopen the agreement for the negotiation of wages and/or group insurance as of April 1, 1957.' The plaintiff made an application to the Superior Court to have the award vacated.
The submission called upon the arbitrators for a construction of the provision of the agreement relating to the right of the plaintiff to reopen it. The award construed this provision to allow only one reopening within the duration of the contract. The trial court concluded that the award was 'in strict conformity with the submission.' It also concluded that the construction given to the provision by the arbitrators was 'contrary to law,' and it vacated the award.
The crucial issue on this appeal is not whether the arbitrators' construction of the contract provision was, as a strictly legal construction, the correct one. It is, rather, whether the arbitrators had the power to interpret the legal effect of the provision. The powers of arbitrators are fixed by the terms of the submission. New Britain Machine Co. v. Lodge 1021, 143 Conn. 399, 404, 122 A.2d 786, and cases cited. Parties to an arbitration may make a restricted or an unrestricted submission. Chase Brass & Copper Co. v. Chase Brass & Cooper Workers Union, 139 Conn. 591, 595, 96 A.2d 209. If the submission is unrestricted, arbitrators are not required to decide 'according to law.' Ibid.; Liggett v. Torrington Building Co., 114 Conn. 425, 432, 158 A. 917; Park Construction Co. v. Independent School District, 216 Minn. 27, 32, 11 N.W.2d 649; In re Estate of Reynolds, 221 N.C. 449, 452, 20 S.E.2d 348; Matter of Spectrum Fabrics Corporation (Main Street Fashions, Inc.), 285 App.Div. 710, 714, 139 N.Y.S.2d 612, affirmed 309 N.Y. 709, 128 N.E.2d 416; Wark & Co. v. Twelfth & Sansom Corporation, 378 Pa. 578, 583, 107 A.2d 856; Sturges, Commercial Arbitrations & Awards, § 218. This is so, as pointed out in Liggett v. Torrington Building Co., supra, because arbitrators are customarily chosen for their special knowledge and skill in the matter in dispute and they are expected to settle the questions presented to them in the light of their peculiar qualifications.
This action is an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AFSCME v. Dep't of Children & Families
...“Parties to an arbitration may make a restricted or an unrestricted submission.” United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America Local 235 v. Union Mfg. Co., 145 Conn. 285, 287, 141 A.2d 479 (1958). “Where the submission does not otherwise state, the arbitrators are empowered to decide......
-
Connecticut Co. v. Division 425 of Amalgamated Ass'n of St., Elec. Ry. and Motor Coach Emp. of America
...unless notice of termination is given, is a common one in labor-management agreements. See United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers, etc. v. Union Mfg. Co., 145 Conn. 285, 286, 289, 141 A.2d 479. The terms of the notice given by the plaintiff brought the contractual relationship of the par......
-
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co.
...be determined by the arbitrators.' This approach is consistent with Connecticut Law. United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 235 v. Union Mfg. Co., 145 Conn. 285, 288, 141 A.2d 479; Chase Brass & Copper Co. v. Chase Brass & Copper Workers Union, 139 Conn. 591, 595, 96 A.......
-
Connecticut Union of Tel. Workers, Inc. v. Southern New England Tel. Co.
...agreement which are involved in, or applicable to, the facts of the dispute submitted. United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America, Local 235 v. Union Mfg. Co., 145 Conn. 285, 289, 141 A.2d 479. This does not necessarily mean that the arbitrators are also empowered to determine the......