Minute Maid Company v. Citrus, Cannery, Food Processing and Allied Workers, Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 444

Fifth Circuit

Minute Maid Company v. Citrus, Cannery, Food Processing and Allied Workers, Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 444

331 F.2d 280, 56 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2095, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5533

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 28, 1964·No. 21168·Published·Cited by 28 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Company appeals from a judgment of the District Court enforcing compliance with an arbitration award which determines that an employee was laid off in violation of the collective bargaining agreement between Company and Union, and orders reinstatement with back pay. The Company asserts that the award was beyond the authority of the arbitrator because (1) the grievance did not specify .the particular subsection of the agreement relied upon by the arbitrator (although it did specify another closely related section) and (2) the collective bargaining agreement does not expressly provide for a back pay remedy (although it does not expressly preclude such remedy^

In line with the so-called trilogy 1 of Supreme Court decisions and the consequent decisions of this Court in-eluding Lodge No. 12, Dist. No. 37, Intern. Ass’n of Machinists v. Cameron Iron Works, Inc., 5 Cir., 1961, 292 F.2d 112, the merits of the award are not open to court review. The arbitrator interpreted and applied the collective bargaining agreement to this layoff situation, found that the lay-off violated the agreement, and that reinstatement with back pay was an appropriate remedy. The essence of the award was drawn from the collective bargaining agreement, United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 1960 363 U.S. 593 597; 80 S.Ct 1358 4 L.Ed.2d 1424. The contract did not exclude from arbitration either the subject matter or the remedy adopted by the arbiter. Nor on this reeord do any asserted procedural irregularities vitiate the award. International Ass’n Machinists A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. Hayes Corp., 5 Cir., 1961, 296 F.2d 238, 5 Cir., 1963 316 F.2d 90; Southwestern Ele c . Power Co. v. Local Union No. 738, 5 Cir., 1961, 293 F.2d 929

Affirmed.

1

. United Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., 1960, 363 U.S. 564, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403; United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 1960, 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409; United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 1960, 363 U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Company appeals from a judgment of the District Court enforcing compliance with an arbitration award which determines that an employee was laid off in violation of the collective bargaining agreement between Company and Union, and orders reinstatement with back pay. The Company asserts that the award was beyond the authority of the arbitrator because (1) the grievance did not specify .the particular subsection of the agreement relied upon by the arbitrator (although it did specify another closely related section) and (2) the collective bargaining agreement does not expressly provide for a back pay remedy (although it does not expressly preclude such remedy^

In line with the so-called trilogy 1 of Supreme Court decisions and the consequent decisions of this Court in-eluding Lodge No. 12, Dist. No. 37, Intern. Ass’n of Machinists v. Cameron Iron Works, Inc., 5 Cir., 1961, 292 F.2d 112, the merits of the award are not open to court review. The arbitrator interpreted and applied the collective bargaining agreement to this layoff situation, found that the lay-off violated the agreement, and that reinstatement with back pay was an appropriate remedy. The essence of the award was drawn from the collective bargaining agreement, United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 1960 363 U.S. 593 597; 80 S.Ct 1358 4 L.Ed.2d 1424. The contract did not exclude from arbitration either the subject matter or the remedy adopted by the arbiter. Nor on this reeord do any asserted procedural irregularities vitiate the award. International Ass’n Machinists A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. Hayes Corp., 5 Cir., 1961, 296 F.2d 238, 5 Cir., 1963 316 F.2d 90; Southwestern Ele c . Power Co. v. Local Union No. 738, 5 Cir., 1961, 293 F.2d 929

Affirmed.

1

. United Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., 1960, 363 U.S. 564, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403; United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 1960, 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409; United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 1960, 363 U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424.

Minute Maid Company v. Citrus, Cannery, Food Processing and Allied Workers, Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 444, 331 F.2d 280, 56 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2095, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5533 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

331 F.2d 280 (Minute Maid Company v. Citrus, Cannery, Food Processing and Allied Workers, Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 444) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related