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
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 28, 1964
Docket21168
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 331 F.2d 280 (Minute Maid Company v. Citrus, Cannery, Food Processing and Allied Workers, Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union 444) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
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).

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

Related

Wing v. J.C. Bradford & Co.
678 F. Supp. 622 (N.D. Mississippi, 1987)
City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee Police Ass'n
292 N.W.2d 841 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1980)
Sverdrup/Aro, Inc. v. Intern. Ass'n of MacHinists
532 F. Supp. 143 (E.D. Tennessee, 1980)
Sonic Knitting Industries, Inc. v. International Ladies Garment
106 P.R. Dec. 557 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1977)
College Hall Fashions, Inc. v. Philadelphia Joint Board
408 F. Supp. 722 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
331 F.2d 280, 56 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2095, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minute-maid-company-v-citrus-cannery-food-processing-and-allied-workers-ca5-1964.