Court Opinion

ID: 9559059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:21:38.142134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:45.671357
License: Public Domain

Jackson, J.
(dissenting): It is with regret that I find that I cannot accept the decision of the majority opinion. The petition only seeks one thing, a decree of the court commanding the aircraft company to agree to the convening of a grievance board meeting to hear the alleged grievance of John Wink, all as the company is alleged to have agreed to do in the contract between the union and the company. This court or the district court is not being called upon to decide a question of an unfair labor practice nor is it being called to decide in favor of John Wink as to his alleged dispute with the company.
In my opinion, the National Labor Relations Act allows and in*190tends that the courts shall aid the parties in determining their contractual obligations, and by refusing to exercise the court’s jurisdiction under the-act, the court not only is failing to carry out the spirit of the act, but is putting a stone in the road of peaceful labor relations and surrendering our ancient jurisdiction over breach of contract. All of the authorities, in my humble opinion, so hold, e. g. Textile Workers Union of America v. Arista Mills, 193 F. 2d 529; Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. National Labor Rel. Bd., 161 F. 2d 949; Independent Petroleum W. of N. J. v. Esso Stand. Oil Co., 235 F. 2d 401; Local 205 etc. v. General Electric Company, 233 F. 2d 85; Lodge No. 12 etc. v. Cameron Iron Works, 257 F. 2d 467, cert. denied, 358 U. S. 880, 3 L. Ed. 2d 110, 79 S. Ct. 120; Plumbers & Steamfitters Union Local No. 598 v. Dillon, 255 F. 2d 820; Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448, 1 L. Ed. 2d 972, 77 S. Ct. 912; McCarroll v. L. A. County etc. Carpenters, 49 Cal. 2d 45, 315 P. 2d 322.
In my opinion, the district court was entirely correct in overruling defendant’s demurrer.
Fatzer, J., concurs in the foregoing dissent.