Court Opinion

ID: 9456584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:57:20.038134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:02.163378
License: Public Domain

ALBERT V. BRYAN, Circuit Judge:
An arbitrament in favor of the appellant union Ampthill Rayon Workers, Inc., and against appellee E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Company, was refused enforcement by the District Court. This we believe error.
The arbitration treated with the union claim on behalf of group 3 textile workers at the DuPont plant in Chesterfield County, Virginia, for wages at the higher group 4 pay scale whenever performing work related to operating the machine known as the Nomex cutter-baler. The company denied this employment was within the group 4 level, and so rejected the demand.
Arbitration is a mandatory step in the procedure provided by the union-company agreement for settlement of labor disputes. Ampthill filed the instant grievance with the company on July 21, 1967. An award with opinion was returned April 17, 1969. It found as a fact that this work fell within the group 4 classification and adjudged the workers entitled to remuneration at the higher grade.
For an agreed period preceding the date on which the grievance had been *1361filed, the company satisfied the arbitrators’ assessment of backpay, but it declined payment of the enhanced compensation accruing after the grievance date. That is the pith of this litigation.
The company’s points are (1) that the award had no prospective force; but (2) if it did, then despite the union-company agreement’s stipulation therefor, the union had refused to negotiate a lower classification for the machine related work, and thereby forfeited the additional remuneration. Since he agreed that the award lacked prospective effect, the District Judge dismissed the action without considering the second defense.
Compensation of the DuPont employees was specified in Article IV, Sections 1 and 2 of the union-company agreement as follows:
“Section 1. A copy of hourly wage rates and job classifications for all hourly roll employes covered by this Agreement and any subsequent revision of these rates and job classifications shall be furnished to the UNION by the COMPANY. * * * ”
“Section 2. Either party to this Agreement shall have the right at any time to reopen the subject of hourly wage rates for negotiation, and the COMPANY agrees to make no reduction in established job rates without prior negotiation with the UNION.” (Accent added.)
******
The arbitrators, after noting that the group 4 classification had been properly established for the machine work, said:
“ * * * In assigning additional employees [group 3s] to the [Nomex] * * * operation, the Company was under obligation to negotiate this job as it had the higher rated job * * * unless it * * * expected to pay the same rate.
“If the Company at any point had negotiated this job and reached some agreement with the Union about the group 3 carrying certain of the duties formerly spelled out as group 4 duties, then the situation might be different. But in the absence of such negotiations or such agreement, the situation is one, we feel, that calls for an award supporting the Union’s positions.” (Accents added.)
In sum, the arbitrators concluded that the company had not, before the award, established negotiations for a reclassification of this group 4 work, and until inauguration of negotiations the 3s should receive the pay of 4s.
In traverse, the company showed that it had by letter in the fall of 1967 sought, under Article IV, Section 2, “to reopen the subject of hourly wage rates for negotiation”. The correspondence read as follows:
“ October 31, 1967
Mr. E. E. Almeida, Chairman Executive Committee Ampthill Rayon Workers, Inc. Richmond, Virginia
Dear Mr. Almeida:
As was acknowledged in the meeting of the Grievance Committee with W. R. Galloway, Jr., on October 26, 1967, we inadvertently did not inform the Executive Committee of a new assignment that was established in the No-mex Fibers Plant.
This letter is to rectify this oversight. Major duties and rate of pay for this new assignment are stated below:
Finishing Machine Operator— Group 3
Top Day Rate — $2.80 per hour
Major Duties — Stock staple cutter creel, prepare bale cartons and operate staple baler. Other duties include handling waste, sampling, preparing packing tickets, strapping, weighing and delivering completed bales to Shipping.
The above is a shift assignment that has been combined with existing group
*13623 Finishing Machine Operator assignments in the “Nomex” Fibers Plant.
Very truly yours,
/s/ William H. Reynolds W. H. Reynolds Area Supervisor Nomex Textile Area
WHR/mss
The letter was not tendered to the arbitrators until after their award had been released and their hearing reopened for clarification of the award.
Objecting to it, the union contends that the letter is a self-serving declaration — a belated effort to cover the contested work into the group 3 category. That is to say, that since it was issued after the date of grievance, it was but an attempt to reclassify unilaterally and retroactively the positions of these workers. The union urges that under the agreement such an adjustment can be accomplished only by negotiation between the union and the company.
The arbitrators refused to consider the letter, saying that they were only empowered to fix the classification as of the date of grievance — July 20, 1967 — and could not consider later events. This we think was correct.
The effect of the letter, we further conclude, is a question to be answered under the grievance procedure of the agreement. But, also, it is our opinion that by the terms of the agreement, supra, the arbitrators’ award continues until the letter of October 31, 1967 or subsequent proffers are found to be acceptable requests “to reopen the subject of hourly wage rates for negotiation” pursuant to Article IV, Section 2, supra.
Therefore, the dismissal of the action is vacated, and the case is remanded for an order allowing the union ■ to recover the awarded wage increment until the parties negotiate a reclassification, according to the terms of the agreement, of the group 3s’ work in suit.
Vacated and remanded.