United Concrete Pipe Corp. v. Laborers' Local No. 89

California Court of Appeal Dec 16, 1964 No. Civ. 7282Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a union may be enjoined from striking over a grievance that is subject to compulsory arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement, even in the absence of an express no-strike clause.

Issues

Whether a grievance regarding the discharge of a shop steward is subject to compulsory arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement.
Whether a state court may enjoin a strike over an arbitrable grievance when the contract lacks an express no-strike clause.
Whether the state court lacked jurisdiction due to the dispute arguably falling under sections 7 and 8 of the Labor Management Relations Act.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The grievance involved in this case is within the express contemplation of the collective bargaining agreement which provides for compulsory terminal arbitration.”

BROWN (Gerald), J.

Defendant Laborers’ Local 89 (the Union) appeals from an order granting a preliminary injunction restraining it from picketing or striking over a grievance with plaintiff United Concrete Pipe Corporation (the Employer).

In January 1962 the Union and the Employer entered into a collective bargaining agreement which provided for an employee grievance settlement procedure (Article IX) and the rights and duties of a shop steward (Article X).

Article IX directs the procedure by which an employee settles a grievance with the employer. If a grievance is not settled, the final step is compulsory arbitration, provided the grievance "... involves a question of the interpretation or the application of this agreement.”

Article X specifies that the shop steward shall be a working employee who will be given a reasonable amount of on-the-job time to perform his union duties. Additionally it provides : “In no event shall the employer discriminate against a steward or lay him off or discharge him on account of any action taken by him in the proper performance of his Union duties.”

The collective bargaining agreement does not contain a no-strike provision.

In December 1962, after notice to the Union, the Employer

[317]

laid off Shop Steward Theodore Williams. Williams declared the Employer constantly harassed and discriminated against him because of his position. On December 19, 1962 the Union met with the Employer in an effort to have Williams reinstated. The Union argued the discharge was discriminatory and violated the collective bargaining agreement. Being unable to agree, the Union threatened to picket. The Employer telegraphed the Union that it stood ready to process “any grievance in accordance with Article IX.” The Union replied “Your discharge of Steward repudiates the contract grievance procedure and is the latest example of bad faith bargaining in violation of NLRA and basic labor principles. ’'

On December 28, 1962 the Union filed a charge against the Employer with the National Labor Relations Board alleging: “Discrimination against Union Stewards in violation and repudiation of Collective Bargaining Agreement, as well as in violation of National Labor Relations Act ...” and other continued refusals to bargain collectively. The same day a temporary restraining order was issued by the superior court at the request of the Employer.

United Concrete Pipe Corp. v. Laborers' Local No. 89

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief