United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States Court of Appeals Third Circuit
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs283 F.
2d 80
INTERNATIONAL MOLDERS AND FOUNDRY WORKERS
UNION OF NORTH
AMERICA, Local 239, AFLCIO, by Wilmer Sheckard,
District Representative and Trustee and Litem
v.
SUSQUEHANNA CASTING CO., INC., Wrightsville,
Pennsylvania, Appellant.
No. 13287.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Sept. 15, 1960.
Decided Oct. 7, 1960.
Horace E. Smith, York, Pa. (Thomas H. Reed, York, Pa., on the brief), for
appellant.
Richard H. Markowitz, Philadelphia, Pa. (Richard Kirschner, Wilderman
& Markowitz, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.
Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and STALEY, Circuit Judges.
GOODRICH, Circuit Judge.
This case concerns the obligation of an employer to arbitrate a difference with a
union which arises out of the contract between them. The Union applied to the
district court for an order to arbitrate and that order was granted together with
an opinion filed by the district judge. D.C.M.D.Pa.1960, 184 F.Supp. 543.
The Union's grievance consists of the discharge of some thirty employees by
the Company. Under Article IV of the contract the right to discharge for 'proper
cause' is vested in the Company. The Union's claim, which it wishes arbitrated,
is that the discharge was not for proper cause. The Company says, however,
that the no-strike provision which appears in Article V of the contract was
violated and, therefore, the discharge was proper, that the Union broke the
contract and no arbitration can be properly called for.
The arbitrarion provision is in Article V of the contract. It provides for the steps
for arbitration of 'disputes or grievances.'
The fact that the Company alleges that there was a violation of the contract by
the Union quite clearly does not relieve it from the responsibility of arbitrating
the propriety of the discharges here in question. As pointed out by the Supreme
Court in United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.,
1960, 363 U.S. 574, 578-581, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409, we must not
confuse the scope of the labor-management contract with rules applicable to
commercial contracts however well settled in that area.
There certainly was a grievance in this instance, nemely, the discharge of thirty
men claimed by the Union not to be a proper one. It is admitted by the Union
that on one day some men did leave their work for at least a portion of a day.
Whether that leaving was justified by the circumstances is a question for the
arbitrator. If it was not justified, there is a further question of whether the
drastic remedy of discharge of these men was a proper one under the terms of
the contract. In other words, this case is one precisely suited to the arbitration
process under the agreement that the parties have made. It is similar although
not quite the same as the problem presented in our decision in Association of
Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 283 F.2d
93. The cases cited in connection with that case are equally applicable here.1
And each of our cases is within the teachings of the Supreme Court's decision
in United Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., decided June, 1960,
and reported in 363 U.S. at page 564, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
See especially, United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car
Corp., 1960, 363 U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424, which is a case
presenting a similar claim, but in a different stage of the proceedings
