Earl F. Reed, Donald W. Ebbert, Thorp, Bostwick, Reed & Armstrong, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Maurice Louik, Harrison & Louik, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross and Fine, JJ.
[ 166 Pa. Super. Page 92]
Arbitrators selected under a written collective bargaining agreement between The Westinghouse Air Brake Company, hereafter called Westinghouse, and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local No. 610, hereafter called the Union, found for the latter. Contending only that 'the arbitrators exceeded their powers', within the meaning of the Act of April 25, 1927, P.L. 381, § 10(d), 5 P.S. § 170(d), Westinghouse obtained a rule to show cause why the award should not be vacated. After argument the court below discharged the rule, and Westinghouse appealed.
The agreement provides for submission of grievances to arbitrators and the method of their selection. A section
[ 166 Pa. Super. Page 93]
defines grievances: 'A grievance is defined to be any question or controversy between the Company and one (1) or more employees or the Union as to the application, interpretation or violation of the terms of this Agreement, or any matter involving wages, hours or working conditions not specifically covered by this Agreement.' (Emphasis added.) It provides that a decision of two of three arbitrators shall be the decision of the board, and: 'The decision of the Board shall be final and binding upon both parties.' There is also a provision: 'The Board of Arbitration shall not have the right to in any way alter, amend or enlarge the terms of this Agreement.'
The grievance submitted to the arbitrators related to and called for an interpretation of Section 1 of Article II of the agreement: 'The normal work week shall be forty (40) hours, consisting of five (5) eight-hour days, Monday to Friday, inclusive, except where continuous operation requires otherwise. Nothing contained in this Section shall be interpreted to limit the right of the Company to schedule more or less than normal working time.' Two other sections of the agreement are also pertinent. Article I, Section 6 provides: 'Management of the plant and direction of the working forces are vested in the Company. The exercise of such rights by the Company shall include but not be limited to the right to hire, assign and schedule the work, * * * provided that no action so taken shall be in violation of any other provisions of this agreement.' Article IV, Section 2, 'Overtime at the rate of time and-one-half shall also be paid for all hours worked between 7:15 a. m. Saturday and 7:15 a. m. Sunday.'
The Union's written grievance charged that Westinghouse violated Section 1 of Article II: 'By laying men off a day or more in their normal scheduled work week (Monday through Friday) when they have work available.' The arbitrators, with the one selected by Westinghouse
[ 166 Pa. Super. Page 94]
dissenting, found as a fact: 'On or about the middle of September the Company began to lay off certain electricians for different days during the Monday to Friday work-week and ordered them to report for work on the following Saturday.' Concerning this there seems to be no dispute, for Westinghouse in its brief says: 'The employer directed * * * employees * * * to lay off one week day and to work on the following Saturday.' With that fact established, although the decision is not for us, there would appear to be some substantial basis for the ...