Window Glass Cutters League v. American St. Gobain Corp., 18380.

• Decision Date: 06 July 1970
• Docket Number: No. 18380.,18380.
• Citation: 428 F.2d 353
• Parties: WINDOW GLASS CUTTERS LEAGUE OF AMERICA, AFL/CIO, Appellant, v. AMERICAN ST. GOBAIN CORPORATION, a corporation, United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO, CLC, and Local No. 21 (Additional Defendants).
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

428 F.2d 353 (1970)

WINDOW GLASS CUTTERS LEAGUE OF AMERICA, AFL/CIO, Appellant, v. AMERICAN ST. GOBAIN CORPORATION, a corporation United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America, AFL-CIO, CLC, and Local No. 21 (Additional Defendants).

No. 18380.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued April 23, 1970.

Decided July 6, 1970.

Leonard S. Sigall, Sigall & Sigall, Columbus, Ohio (Morrison F. Lewis, Jr., Greensburg, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Leonard L. Scheinholtz, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa. (William D. Armour, Jonathan L. Alder, Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellee, American Saint Gobain Corporation.

Before GANEY, VAN DUSEN and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a September 29, 1969, order dismissing an action instituted by a union, the Window Glass Cutters League of America (hereinafter "the League"), pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, to require the defendant, American St. Gobain Corporation (hereinafter "the Company"), to accept and process a grievance in conformity with the grievance procedures of a collective bargaining agreement. Attached to the complaint, which prayed for a "mandatory order enforcing the grievance procedure of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and ordering Defendant to accept and process the grievance * * * in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement including the submission of said grievance to binding arbitration in the event that it shall not have been settled", was a copy of the League's "Grievance Report" which the Company had allegedly refused to process. This report stated the grievance to be:

"The Company is in violation of the contract by assigning to employees outside the League\'s contractual bargaining unit the work of setting and adjusting cutting heads on cutting machines."

The League does not deny that these "employees outside the League's contractural bargaining unit" to whom the disputed work was assigned are members of another union, the United Glass and Ceramic Workers of North America (hereinafter "Ceramics Union"), who have a separate collective bargaining agreement with the Company.

Prior to answering the complaint, the Company filed a motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19 and 21 to require the joinder of the Ceramics Union as an additional party defendant. After holding a hearing, the court, by order of August 7, 1969, granted the motion, which requested that the plaintiff be required "* * * to file and serve an amended Complaint and to serve a Summons upon the officers of said additional Defendants. * * *" The League then apparently reported that it had no intention of joining the Ceramics Union and the court granted the Company's motion entitled "Motion to Dismiss on Ground of Failure to Join a Party Under Rule 19" after filing a memorandum order in which it recognized that such dismissal is necessary to achieve an appealable order". It is from this September 29, 1969, order dismissing its complaint that the League takes this appeal.

The Company's glass manufacturing facility at Jeannette, Pennsylvania, is divided into two areas, known as the "cold" and "hot" ends of the plant. At the hot end, molten glass is drawn from a melting tank into a "drawing machine" where it is fabricated into sheets and sent to the cold end for sizing. Employees at the hot end of the plant are represented by the Ceramics Union while those at the cold end are represented by the League. In February of 1969, the Company added a third cutting wheel to the two already on the drawing machine at the hot end of the plant, thus precipitating the grievance alluded to in the complaint. Exhibit C to the complaint, which is a memorandum from a Company supervisor, indicates that the Company took the position that it would not process, under the League's collective bargaining agreement, a grievance having to do with the drawing machines since none of the League's members were employed in that area of its operation.

We have reached the conclusion that the court's order requiring the joinder of the Ceramics Union under F.R.Civ.P. 19 was...