Court Opinion

ID: 9455971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:38:55.585169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:48.625271
License: Public Domain

*70McCREE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. The company’s proposal for a new apprentice pay rate and progression schedule clearly stated that the effective date of the agreement would be “the Monday of the week in which the Union advises the Company” that the proposal was acceptable. As the majority observed, the union “conditionally accepted” the company’s proposal, but insisted on an effective date retroactive to October 3, 1966. The company never accepted this counter-offer, but instead unilaterally instituted the new rates and schedule, effective as of February 13, 1967. Under these circumstances, there never occurred a “meeting of the minds” necessary to the formation of a binding contract. See Orient Mid-East Great Lakes Service v. International Export Lines, Ltd., 315 F.2d 519, 522 (4th Cir. 1963). Accordingly, I would hold that plaintiff-appellee union failed to sustain its burden of establishing the existence of a binding contract with an effective date of October 3, 1966 and I would reverse the judgment of the District Court.