Citations
- 428 F.2d 23
Full opinion text
OPINION OF THE COURT
ADAMS, Circuit Judge.
In the Steelworkers’ trilogy, the Supreme Court made it clear that the national labor policy favors the settlement of labor disputes through arbitration. This policy, however, does not provide the solution to the present dispute, but does set forth the guidelines for its resolution.
Local 616, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO (Union) and Byrd Plastics, Inc. (Employer) are parties to a collective bargaining agreement. The Union filed a complaint in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to enforce an arbitration award entered presumably on the basis of the collective bargaining agreement. The Employer filed a motion to dismiss alleging, inter alia, that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted since a prior arbitration award had decided the same grievance in favor of the Employer. The District Court granted the Employer’s motion to dismiss, and the Union appealed.
The circumstances leading to the District Court proceeding began on October 24, 1967, when the Union, on behalf of employee, Rosalie Black, filed a “grievance” with the Employer alleging that the Employer violated the seniority provision of the collective bargaining agreement by failing to recall Rosalie Black from layoff. The Union filed its complaint as a “union grievance” rather than an individual grievance, thus short-cutting the procedural steps set forth in the collective bargaining agreement. Although the Employer objected to the initiation of the grievance in this manner, the Union persisted in processing the grievance in this form and arbitration was scheduled before Arbitrator Maurice Nichols. After a hearing, Nichols made an award which sustained the position of the Employer, and dismissed the grievance because the employee haJ not signed it or processed it through th( full grievance procedure outlined in thíagreement. Nichols concluded his opinio) by stating that the grievance was “disiissed without consideration of the mrits of the claim for reinstatement”.
Five days later, the grievace was refiled over the signature of le employee and processed in aeeordance'ith the outlined grievance procedure, he Employer took the position that thecond filing was improper, and that iivas not required to arbitrate the griance again. The Employer based its comtion on the dismissal of Rosalie Black’;rievance by Arbitrator Nichols, and thlause of the collective bargaining agment which states that the “decision Che Arbitrator on a matter properly bee him within the limits of his juris «on shall be final and binding”. The Dn requested the Federal Mediation a Conciliation Service to appoint an ¿rator. Because the collective bargafg agreement states that “either partly request a panel or panels of arbitré”, and “[i]f agreement cannot be r