Court Opinion

ID: 9861498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:07:23.410296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:35.546496
License: Public Domain

Fairchild, J.
{dissenting). A collective-bargaining agreement was in effect. It provided for arbitration of unresolved grievances. The parties resorted to arbitration in compliance with the agreement and an award was made. The parties violated no statute. This court now affirms an injunction forbidding enforcement of the award against the plaintiffs.
In my opinion, plaintiffs have shown no grounds for the exercise of the equity powers of a court.
Plaintiffs’ complaint attacked the award solely upon the ground that the award exceeded the limits of interpretation of the agreement and therefore did not comply with the contract. Neither the trial court, nor this one, has dealt with that issue.
It appears that the grievance concerning the seniority of employees who had been employed both within and without the bargaining unit arose in September, 1957. The parties stipulated that on September 19th, the union committee called a meeting of the employees in the bargaining unit and that a majority voted to arbitrate the grievance. A number of plaintiffs were present. The hearing before the arbitrator was held October 30th, and the award was made March 10, 1958. The award was read to a subsequent union meeting in the bargaining unit. There is no claim that any plaintiff made any effort to intervene and present his arguments before the arbitrator, or that the company or union prevented or made it difficult for plaintiffs to attempt to *277intervene. The position now taken by this court is that at some point in the arbitration, .the union or the company had the duty of serving notice of hearing upon plaintiffs if they wished the award to be binding upon plaintiffs.
The present action was commenced June 29, 1958, after a dispute arose between the union and the company over the employer’s compliance with the award, and after an unfair-labor-practice charge was filed against the employer by the union. As stated above, the complaint did not raise the issue of lack of notice.
There is no claim that the employer failed to make a vigorous presentation of all reasonable contentions favorable to plaintiffs, and the statement accompanying the arbitrator’s award indicates that the employer presented full arguments and briefs in support of its position.
We have no right to impose upon labor arbitrations a new procedural requirement (which turns out to be jurisdictional, in effect) merely because we “deem [it] to be in the best interests of sound public policy.” That is legislation.
Plaintiffs have not shown that advantage has been taken of them by unconscionable conduct.