The Procter & Gamble Independent Union of Port Ivory, N.Y. v. The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company

Second Circuit

The Procter & Gamble Independent Union of Port Ivory, N.Y. v. The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company

298 F.2d 647, 49 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2557, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 6050

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 31, 1962

Docket171, Docket 27163

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 298 F.2d 647 (The Procter & Gamble Independent Union of Port Ivory, N.Y. v. The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Procter & Gamble Independent Union of Port Ivory, N.Y. v. The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, 298 F.2d 647, 49 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2557, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 6050 (2d Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

MEDINA, Circuit Judge.

This is a companion case with that bearing the same title and described as “Civil 27162, 298 F.2d 644.” Two grievances were involved but the one relating to alleged discrimination against R. Spit-tel, a union official, by not paying him the minimum wage for his job is not before us, as Judge Bartels held that this grievance was not arbitrable under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, and the Union has not filed any cross-appeal. The other grievance was filed by the Union on September 12, 1960, and it charged the employer with a violation of the collective bargaining agreement in the following terms: “Article XII, Section 5, Foreman working — Violation of agreements.” Judge Bartels granted summary judgment for plaintiff ordering defendant to proceed to arbitration of this, the “Wilson Grievance.” The opinion below is reported at 195 F. Supp. 64.

While the procedural background is different the issue before the District Court was the same as that presented in “Civil 27162,” decided herewith, and the reasons for affirming Judge Bartels’ order are the same. We, of course, express no opinion on the subject of whether Judge Bartels correctly decided the issue relating to the grievance concerning Spittel, as that issue is not before us.

Judge Smith agrees with what we have already written in the foregoing portion of this opinion, but he dissents solely on the same ground on which he dissented in “Civil 27162.”

Affirmed and stay vacated.

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

I dissent as stated in the majority opinion.

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

MEDINA, Circuit Judge.

This is a companion case with that bearing the same title and described as “Civil 27162, 298 F.2d 644.” Two grievances were involved but the one relating to alleged discrimination against R. Spit-tel, a union official, by not paying him the minimum wage for his job is not before us, as Judge Bartels held that this grievance was not arbitrable under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, and the Union has not filed any cross-appeal. The other grievance was filed by the Union on September 12, 1960, and it charged the employer with a violation of the collective bargaining agreement in the following terms: “Article XII, Section 5, Foreman working — Violation of agreements.” Judge Bartels granted summary judgment for plaintiff ordering defendant to proceed to arbitration of this, the “Wilson Grievance.” The opinion below is reported at 195 F. Supp. 64.

While the procedural background is different the issue before the District Court was the same as that presented in “Civil 27162,” decided herewith, and the reasons for affirming Judge Bartels’ order are the same. We, of course, express no opinion on the subject of whether Judge Bartels correctly decided the issue relating to the grievance concerning Spittel, as that issue is not before us.

Judge Smith agrees with what we have already written in the foregoing portion of this opinion, but he dissents solely on the same ground on which he dissented in “Civil 27162.”

Affirmed and stay vacated.

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

I dissent as stated in the majority opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 F.2d 647, 49 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2557, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 6050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-procter-gamble-independent-union-of-port-ivory-ny-v-the-procter-ca2-1962.

Opinion

I dissent as stated in the majority opinion.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack