Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    Federal Labor Union No. 18887 Affiliated With The A.f.l.-C.i.o. v. Midvale-Heppenstall Company, 421 F.2d 1289, 3rd Cir. (1970)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The union filed a grievance arguing that employees performing one job (Treatment Heaters) should receive the same higher pay as those in a comparable job (Forged Heaters). The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under the collective bargaining agreement, he did not have jurisdiction to determine if wage rates should be increased after jobs were deemed comparable. The district court and appeals court affirmed, finding the arbitrator's decision drew from the agreement and that he appropriately determined the issues were beyond his authority to decide based on the contract language.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Federal Labor Union No. 18887 Affiliated With The A.f.l.-C.i.o. v. Midvale-Heppenstall Company, 421 F.2d 1289, 3rd Cir. (1970)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    18 views3 pages
    The union filed a grievance arguing that employees performing one job (Treatment Heaters) should receive the same higher pay as those in a comparable job (Forged Heaters). The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under the collective bargaining agreement, he did not have jurisdiction to determine if wage rates should be increased after jobs were deemed comparable. The district court and appeals court affirmed, finding the arbitrator's decision drew from the agreement and that he appropriately determined the issues were beyond his authority to decide based on the contract language.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1970-01-26 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 421 F.2d 1289 Docket: 17940_1

    Original Title

    Federal Labor Union No. 18887 Affiliated With the a.f.l.-c.i.o. v. Midvale-Heppenstall Company, 421 F.2d 1289, 3rd Cir. (1970)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The union filed a grievance arguing that employees performing one job (Treatment Heaters) should receive the same higher pay as those in a comparable job (Forged Heaters). The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under the collective bargaining agreement, he did not have jurisdiction to determine if wage rates should be increased after jobs were deemed comparable. The district court and appeals court affirmed, finding the arbitrator's decision drew from the agreement and that he appropriately determined the issues were beyond his authority to decide based on the contract language.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    18 views3 pages

    Federal Labor Union No. 18887 Affiliated With The A.f.l.-C.i.o. v. Midvale-Heppenstall Company, 421 F.2d 1289, 3rd Cir. (1970)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The union filed a grievance arguing that employees performing one job (Treatment Heaters) should receive the same higher pay as those in a comparable job (Forged Heaters). The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that under the collective bargaining agreement, he did not have jurisdiction to determine if wage rates should be increased after jobs were deemed comparable. The district court and appeals court affirmed, finding the arbitrator's decision drew from the agreement and that he appropriately determined the issues were beyond his authority to decide based on the contract language.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    421 F.

    2d 1289
    73 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2384

    FEDERAL LABOR UNION NO. 18887 Affiliated with the


    A.F.L.-C.I.O., Appellant,
    v.
    MIDVALE-HEPPENSTALL COMPANY.
    No. 17940.

    United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.


    Argued Dec. 2, 1969.
    Decided Jan. 26, 1970.

    Edward Davis, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.


    John G. Wayman, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa. (James
    Q. Harty, Arthur R. Littleton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia,
    Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
    Before GANEY, SEITZ and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    PER CURIAM.

    This is an appeal by a union from the refusal of the district court to vacate an
    arbitration award dismissing a grievance1 by the Union for lack of jurisdiction
    and to remand the dispute to an arbitrator with instructions to hear and
    determine the grievance on its merits.

    The Union instituted the grievance based on the Company's failure to increase
    the pay rate for employees on a job classified as Treatment Heaters (Job No.
    323) to that received by those performing work on a higher pay rated job
    classified as Forged Heaters (Job No. 53). The Union relied upon Section 3,
    Article VI of the bargaining agreement in filing the grievance. This section was
    entitled 'Rate Establishment and Adjustment,' and provided as follows:

    The Company and the Union recognize the principle of equal pay for

    The Company and the Union recognize the principle of equal pay for
    employees doing the same or substantially the same operating conditions,
    provided the factors of general skill, ability, and experience of the employees
    are equal, and the Company agrees to make such adjustments in the present rate
    or rates for job classifications to achieve the foregoing objective as may be
    agreed upon by the parties.

    The Company contended that the jobs were not comparable and the Union
    pursued their grievance at all steps and after repeated denials by the Company,
    the Union took the initiative and proceeded to arbitration.

    At the arbitrating hearing the Company contended that the grievance was not
    arbitrable by reason of Section 3 of Article VI, supra, and Section 11 of Article
    XVI,2 but if it were wrong on this score, the jobs in question were not
    comparable.

    The arbitrator found that they pay rates for the jobs in question were agreed
    upon by the parties in the last contract negotiation; that the grievance clearly
    embodied a request for 'changes in the negotiated wage scales for established
    jobs'; and that no changes in the jobs were relied upon by the Union but that it
    simply sought to apply the 'equal pay' provisions of Section 3, Article VI, to
    equalize the rates for asserted comparable jobs. Based on his application of the
    facts to his interpretation of the agreement with regard to Section 3, and also
    Section 11 of Article XVI, he dismissed the grievance 'for lack of jurisdiction in
    the arbitrator', declining to reach the merits of the claim of parity by the Union.

    It must be noted that while the arbitrator, in his opinion, used the word
    'jurisdiction', it is clear from its context that he reached his conclusion by
    interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. Thus it is clearly apparent that
    the arbitrator, in his opinion, decided what the parties in their contract agreed to
    submit to him, that is whether, in interpreting the contract, certain employees'
    wage rates should be increased after a showing that they were comparable to
    those that were paid higher wages and in his interpretation of Section 3, Article
    VI, he held that under the contract the Company had not agreed to make such
    adjustments except on a voluntary basis.

    Contrary to the Union's assertion here, we agree with the district court's ruling
    that the arbitrator's decision was not unreasonable nor arbitrary and capricious,
    but derived its essence from the collective bargaining agreement. See United
    Steel Workers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 599,
    80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960). Section 10 of Article XVI provided that:
    'The decision of the Impartial Arbitrator on any matter within his jurisdiction

    and authority shall be final and binding upon the Company, the Union and the
    employees.' On the face of the agreement, the arbitrator had 'jurisdiction' to
    determine that certain issues were beyond his authority to decide. In saying that
    he had no jurisdiction, the arbitrator was merely following the language of the
    bargaining agreement.
    9

    The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

    In a letter to the Company, the appellant, under date of January 11, 1967, wrote
    as follows, which letter both parties stipulated constituted the grievance:
    'The Treatment Heaters in comparison, to Forge Heaters require a rate
    adjustment. Your attention is directed to Article VI, Section 3.
    'Federal Labor Union #18887 requests that the rate of the Treatment Heaters be
    adjusted so that they are comparable with the rate of the Forge Heaters.
    'If you do not agree with this interpretation of Section 3, Article VI, of the
    Hourly Workers Agreement, this letter will constitute a grievance in the third
    step.'

    This section provided: 'The Impartial Arbitrator shall not have jurisdiction over
    changes in the negotiated wage scales for established jobs.' Additionally,
    Section 9, Article XVI, provided as follows: 'Furthermore, the Impartial
    Arbitrator shall have the jurisdiction and authority only to interpret, apply or
    determine compliance with the provisions of this Agreement and shall not have
    jurisdiction or authority to add to, or detract from, or alter in any way such
    provisions.'

    You might also like