International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Afl-Cio and Local No. 972, Uaw, Afl-Cio v. Cardwell Manufacturing Company, 304 F.2d 801, 10th Cir. (1962)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsInternational Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Afl-Cio and Local No. 972, Uaw, Afl-Cio v. Cardwell Manufacturing Company, 304 F.2d 801, 10th Cir. (1962)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs304 F.
2d 801
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT, AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO; and Local No. 972, UAW,
AFL-CIO, Appellants,
v.
CARDWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 6926.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
May 26, 1962.
James E. Youngdahl (of McMath, Leatherman & Youngdahl, Little Rock,
Ark., and Brick, Beaty & Bonwell, Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for
appellants.
Dwight S. Wallace, Wichita, Kan. (William Porter, Donald C. Tinker, Jr.,
and Harry E. Robbins, Jr., Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for appellee.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and LEWIS and BREITENSTEIN,
Circuit judges.
MURRAH, Chief Judge.
Appellant-Union brought this suit under Section 301(a) of the Labor
Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U.S.C.A. 185, to compel
arbitration of a grievance arising out of appellee-employer's use of a foreman
for production work, allegedly in violation of one of the general provisions of
their collective bargaining agreement.
The agreement pertinently provided arbitration procedures for the settlement of
grievances and stated that the term 'grievance' means 'any dispute between the
Company and the Union * * * concerning the interpretation application, claim
of breach or violation' of the agreement. An arbitration Panel was empowered
to rule on disputed provisions of the agreement and 'any case appealed to the
Arbitration Panel on which they have no power to rule shall be returned to the
parties without decision.'
3
On its face, the asserted grievance patently involves the 'interpretation and
application' of the terms of the bargaining agreement and is therefore a proper
subject for arbitration. See United States Steelworkers of America v. Warrior &
Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409, and cases
there cited; New Park Mining Co. v. United Steelworkers of America (10 C.A.)
288 F.2d 225, United Steelworkers of America etc., v. New Park Mining Co.,
(10 C.A.) 273 F.2d 352; and Local 1912, International Association of
Machinists v. United States Potash Co. (10 C.A.), 270 F.2d 496, cert. den. 363
U.S. 845, 80 S.Ct. 1609, 4 L.Ed.2d 1728. The trial court, however, denied
enforcement and dismissed the suit, based upon a finding that 'the parties did
not intend to have settled by arbitration the issue of whether supervisors could
engage in production work.' This finding was, in turn, based upon the Union's
'admission' of employer's affidavit to the effect that in negotiating the
bargaining contract the Union had unsuccessfully sought a specific provision
covering the subject matter of this grievance. The effect of this finding is to say
that the parties, inferentially at least, excepted this particular grievance from
their agreement to arbitrate. But in a case such as this, where the arbitration
clause is quite broad, 'only the most forecul evidence of a purpose to exclude
the claim for arbitration can prevail * * *.' And, an order to arbitrate should not
be denied unless it may be said 'with positive assurance that the arbitration
clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.'
United States Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.,
supra, 363 U.S. at pages 582 and 585, 80 S.Ct. at pages 1352 and 1354. The
'admission' relied upon by the trial court conceded no more than that
precontract negotiations had been undertaken on the issue of production work
by those outside the bargaining unit and that the bargaining agreement, as
finally reached, was silent on the issue.
It may be that the parties did not intend to include this particular grievance in
their agreement to arbitrate. But even so, the disputed question calls for an
interpretation and application of the terms of the agreement-- a matter which
the parties expressly committed to arbitration. The case is therefore reversed
and remanded with instructions to enter an order requiring the employer to
arbitrate the arbitrability of the grievance.
