Lynn v. Cities Service Oil Co.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

Lynn v. Cities Service Oil Co.

20 Pa. D. & C.2d 579, 1960 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 342

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

DecidedFebruary 4, 1960

Docketno. 1140

StatusPublished

This text of 20 Pa. D. & C.2d 579 (Lynn v. Cities Service Oil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lynn v. Cities Service Oil Co., 20 Pa. D. & C.2d 579, 1960 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 342 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Sloane, P. J.,

— Petitioner, by his petition for arbitration, seeks an order compelling the union and the company, defendants, to arbitrate his claim for occupation injury leave pay, citing and relying upon the Arbitration Act of April 25, 1927, P. L. 381, 5 PS §§161, 163. His allegation is that the union has refused to insist on arbitration of his claim. But in the absence of an allegation that the union’s refusal shows a lack of good faith and is arbitrary, we sustain that part of respondents’ preliminary objections which denies that petitioner has asserted a cause of action.

The requirement that the union as a representative of its member workers has a free hand to bring about industrial harmony, while it does justly, dictates that courts not interfere with adjustments reached by the union. Compare Jenkins v. Schluderberg-Kurdle Co., 217 Md. 556, 144 A. 2d 88, with Ostrofsky v. United Steelworkers of America, 171 F. Supp. 782 (D. Md.). [580]*580See Cox, The Duty of Fair Representation, 2 Villa-nova Law Review, 151; Cox, Rights Under a Labor Agreement, 69 Harvard Law Review, 601.

Nothing in the Arbitration Act, supra, is to the contrary. All the act does is to make arbitration arrangements enforceable; whether arbitration lies depends not on the Arbitration Act, but on the terms of the underlying private arrangement. Cf. Povey v. The Midvale Company, 175 Pa. Superior Ct. 395.

The preliminary objection is sustained. As to respondent company, the petition is dismissed. Petitioner’s counsel at argument said that bad faith did not exist and could not be averred. Nevertheless, out of caution, petitioner has leave to amend within 15 days; otherwise the petition will be dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sloane, P. J.,

— Petitioner, by his petition for arbitration, seeks an order compelling the union and the company, defendants, to arbitrate his claim for occupation injury leave pay, citing and relying upon the Arbitration Act of April 25, 1927, P. L. 381, 5 PS §§161, 163. His allegation is that the union has refused to insist on arbitration of his claim. But in the absence of an allegation that the union’s refusal shows a lack of good faith and is arbitrary, we sustain that part of respondents’ preliminary objections which denies that petitioner has asserted a cause of action.

The requirement that the union as a representative of its member workers has a free hand to bring about industrial harmony, while it does justly, dictates that courts not interfere with adjustments reached by the union. Compare Jenkins v. Schluderberg-Kurdle Co., 217 Md. 556, 144 A. 2d 88, with Ostrofsky v. United Steelworkers of America, 171 F. Supp. 782 (D. Md.). [580]*580See Cox, The Duty of Fair Representation, 2 Villa-nova Law Review, 151; Cox, Rights Under a Labor Agreement, 69 Harvard Law Review, 601.

Nothing in the Arbitration Act, supra, is to the contrary. All the act does is to make arbitration arrangements enforceable; whether arbitration lies depends not on the Arbitration Act, but on the terms of the underlying private arrangement. Cf. Povey v. The Midvale Company, 175 Pa. Superior Ct. 395.

The preliminary objection is sustained. As to respondent company, the petition is dismissed. Petitioner’s counsel at argument said that bad faith did not exist and could not be averred. Nevertheless, out of caution, petitioner has leave to amend within 15 days; otherwise the petition will be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Pa. D. & C.2d 579, 1960 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynn-v-cities-service-oil-co-pactcomplphilad-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack