Court Opinion

ID: 9738824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:03:42.919846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:08.694556
License: Public Domain

Thornton, J.
(dissenting) — I respectfully dissent. The pleadings in this case should not be construed to hold that a violation of the no-strike clause is admitted or stands undenied. The question is not ready for decision under rule 105, Rules of Civil Procedure.
Further, the parties have agreed on a tribunal for the determination of questions arising, “with reference to the proper interpretation or application of the provisions of this contract.” This provision is not a narrow one. It includes the no-strike clause. The fact that arbitration may be instigated only at the request of the union should not be determinative. The company has so agreed. Whether or not there has been a violation of the no-strike clause is proper for the arbitrators to consider in *888determining the grievance. A waiver would go to tbe merits of that question.
What I believe to be the error in the majority opinion is holding that once an evidence of a violation of a no-strike clause appears the parties are no longer required to arbitrate. Under the broad provision for arbitration violations by both parties must be considered by the arbitrators.
Under the provisions of this contract where the union has requested arbitration in accordance with the contract that proceedings should he compelled. The company is denied no rights. It has agreed to be hound by the award of the arbitrators. If after that proceedings is complete it has a damage claim it may proceed in the courts. That is no concern of ours at this time. I would reverse.