United Shoe Workers of America v. Le Danne Footwear
| Decision Date | 18 April 1949 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 8044. |
| Parties | UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C.I.O., v. LE DANNE FOOTWEAR, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Grant & Angoff and Sidney S. Grant, all of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.
Carl D. Epstein, of Boston, Mass., for defendant.
In this suit brought under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185, defendant moves to dismiss so much of plaintiff's action as is based on an oral agreement alleged in paragraph Sixth of the amendment to the complaint, on the ground that said agreement is neither a collective bargaining agreement nor a valid contract, and hence the action based thereon is not one over which this court is given jurisdiction by Section 301.
In deciding this motion the relevant allegations of the plaintiff's complaint must be taken as true. A written collective bargaining contract between plaintiff-union and defendant-employer signed on December 17, 1947, effective from January 1, 1948, to December 31, 1948, provided that the union could re-open the question of wages during the life of the contract and that if the defendant had not by July 1, 1948, agreed to plaintiff's request for a wage increase, the dispute would be arbitrated by the Massachusetts Board of Conciliation and Arbitration. The union gave notice of its desire to re-open the question of wages. Thereafter, duly authorized representatives of the union and the employer orally agreed to await the outcome of arbitration of the wage disputes between the union and some seventy other employers to be held by the same Massachusetts Board of Conciliation and Arbitration and that whatever increase was awarded in these cases would be paid by the defendant here, effective from the date specified by that award. These cases resulted in an award of an increase of five cents per hour effective as of July 1, 1948. In this action plaintiff seeks damages for the alleged failure of defendant to pay this increase in accordance with the oral agreement.
The question is whether an oral agreement entered into subsequent to a written contract, and during the life of the latter, is a valid collective bargaining contract on which an action may be maintained in this court under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act 1947.
In general a subsequent oral agreement adding to or modifying the provisions of a written contract is itself a valid contract unless rendered invalid by a statutory provision requiring certain types of contracts to be in writing in order to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Association of Westinghouse v. Westinghouse El. Corp.
...119 F.Supp. 948; Local 937 etc., v. Royal Typewriter Co., D.C.D.Conn.1949, 88 F. Supp. 669; United Shoe Workers v. Le Danne Footwear, D.C.D.Mass.1949, 83 F. Supp. 714. 13 See Rock Drilling etc. Local Union No. 17 v. Mason & Hangar Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1950, 90 F.Supp. 539. 14 Restatement, Judg......
-
Lewis v. Seanor Coal Company
...involved is required by statute to be in writing that subsequent agreement is itself a valid contract. United Shoe Workers, etc. v. Le Danne Footwear, Inc., 83 F.Supp. 714 (D.Mass.1949). The District Court not only disposed of the above most substantial controverted issue by summary judgmen......
-
Hamilton Foundry & M. Co. v. INTERNATIONAL M. & F. WKRS.
...party requests a written instrument. N. L. R. B. v. Scientific Nutrition Corp., 9 Cir., 180 F.2d 447, 449; United Shoe Workers v. Le Danne Footwear, D.C.Mass., 83 F.Supp. 714. Nor do we agree with appellees' contention that the District Court lacked jurisdiction because the alleged cause of......
-
DISTRICT 2, MARINE ENG. BEN. ASS'N v. Falcon Carriers, Inc., 74 Civ. 1452 (JMC).
...(LRX) 126; Cf., Watson v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc., 399 F.2d 875 (5 Cir. 1968); United Shoe Workers of America v. Le Danne Footwear, 83 F.Supp. 714 (D.Mass. 1949). When found to be inconsistent, the written agreement, and not the subsequent oral agreement, must control. ......