Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Communications Workers of America v. Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., A New York Corporation, 349 F.2d 398, 3rd Cir. (1965)
Communications Workers of America v. Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., A New York Corporation, 349 F.2d 398, 3rd Cir. (1965)
2d 398
This appeal is taken from the Judgment of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey declaring the existence of an issue for arbitration in
accordance with the collective bargaining agreement between the parties.
The facts are not in dispute. Union was, at the times relevant here, an industrial
labor organization duly designated as the collective bargaining agent of certain
employees of Employer. Union and Employer entered into a collective
bargaining agreement as of January 6, 1961, effective until January 5, 1964. On
January 10, 1962, Employer filled a vacant position (plant maintenance hand)
by promoting one Finch. Union claimed that one Cobb was entitled to the
position because his qualifications were substantially equal to those of Finch,
and he had greater seniority. The controversy not being otherwise resolved,
Union demanded arbitration and set forth the matter in dispute with respect to
which it sought arbitration as follows:
4
'The Union charges that the Company failed to fulfill its commitment contained
in Article 14, Section 14.02 in failing to promote employee Cobb to the position
of plant maintenance hand, where Cobb and employee Finch had substantially
equal qualifications, but Cobb had greater seniority. The Union demands that
Cobb be promoted to the job of plant maintenance hand and be awarded back
pay retroactive to January 10, 1962, the date when the promotion was
effective.'
Employer would not proceed to arbitration on the issue thus stated; hence, this
action.
In the court below, Union asserted that it had stated an issue which on its face
was subject to be arbitrated under Section 14.02 of Article 14 and Article 17 of
the collective bargaining agreement.2 Employer contended that Union failed to
specify the contract commitment in Section 14.02 which could be deemed
unfulfilled under the factual allegations presented and that the subject matter of
the demand was outside the scope of the 'uniquely restricted' arbitration
provisions of Article 17. It further offered to prove the meaning of the
agreement if the district court believed the contract was ambiguous, by
adducing evidence of the negotiations respecting arbitrability of promotions.
The district court concluded that the issue presented by Union sufficiently
informed Employer of the subject matter sought to be arbitrated and that on its
face the claim to arbitration was within the arbitration provisions of the
agreement. It rejected the offer of proof of Employer.
11
12
13
There is one final matter for our attention. Employer complains of the form of
the Judgment of the district court. The Judgment in essence declared that an
arbitrational issue was presented which should be referred to an arbitrator for
disposition in accordance with the agreement between the parties and the
opinion of the court. Employer expresses the concern that the arbitrator's
authority may be infringed by the Judgment. It fears that because evidence as to
the meaning of the contract was rejected in this proceeding it may be precluded
from adducing such evidence before the arbitrator.3 It says that this does not
involve the threshold question of whether the arbitrator has jurisdiction 'in the
broad sense.' We believe such fears are groundless, for we only decide here that
the issue presented by Union is one for arbitration. We do not decide how the
contract should be interpreted or what evidence is or is not admissible to
determine how it shall be interpreted or to determine whether a commitment
was unfulfilled. See Association of Washinghouse Salaried Employees v.
Westinghouse Electric Corp., supra. As the district court noted, after the court
has determined that an arbitrable issue exists, the rest remains for the arbitrator.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, supra.
14
For the reasons stated, the Judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
APPENDIX
15
16
17
The factors to be taken into consideration in the filling of a job vacancy with an
employee from a lower-rated classification shall be seniority and necessary
qualifications for the job to be filled. Seniority shall determine the selection of
an employee for a higher-rated classification when two or more employees have
in the opinion of the Laboratories substantially equal qualifications for the job
to be filled. For such vacancies, the Laboratories may give equal consideration
to employees who at any time have been members of the bargaining unit.
Article 16
Grievance Procedure
19
20
21
22
a. The normal procedure for the presentation and prompt settlement of any
grievance arising between an employee or group of employees and the
Laboratories shall be as follows:
23
(1) Between the immediate supervisor and (a) the employee with or without a
representative of the Union at the election of the employee, or (b) a Union
representative.
24
25
26
(2) Between a member of the Grievance Committee of the Union and higher
levels of supervision within the department. If not settled within a period of
seven days, then,
27
(3) Between the Grievance Committee of the Union and the appropriate Area
Manager. If not settled within a period of seven days, then,
28
(4) In a conference between the presidents of each of the locals of the Union,
International representative or representatives of the Union, and the authorized
30
31
The authority of the arbitrator shall be subject to the foregoing and shall not
permit him to add to, subtract from, or in any way modify the terms of this
contract not to deal with any question relating to discretionary payments, merit
consideration or interpretations of law.
Section 17.03
32
The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the Union and the
Laboratories.
Pertinent excerpts from the collective bargaining agreement are set out in an
Appendix,