The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARSH
In this action, tried to the court without a jury, the plaintiff seeks to compel the defendant to submit two grievances (designated as National Appeal Grievance Nos. 1584 and 1628) to arbitration under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
From the Stipulation of Facts filed by the parties and a copy of the collective bargaining agreement stipulated by the parties to be a true and correct copy of the contract which was in effect at all times material to this action, the court makes the following
1. Plaintiff is an unincorporated labor organization having local unions throughout the United States and Canada and whose duly authorized agents are engaged in representing, in the Western District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere, members who have been, and are, employees of defendant.
2. Defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation having its principal office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and having plants and factories in many states of the United States, including Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.
3. Defendant annually purchases large quantities of raw materials and ships large quantities of finished products, in interstate and foreign commerce.
4. On or about March 20, 1956, plaintiff and defendant executed a written modification of a previously existing written collective bargaining agreement (hereinafter referred to as the 'National Agreement'), which, as modified, will expire on October 15, 1960. The National Agreement was executed by plaintiff as collective bargaining representative for, and agent of, certain of defendant's employees at its various plants, including plants located at East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and East Springfield, Massachusetts. This agreement governs the hours of work, rates of pay and other conditions of employment for those of defendant's employees covered by its terms.
5. The National Agreement contains a grievance procedure for the settlement of disputes; it provides for arbitration of certain types of grievances which remain unsettled after the grievance procedure has been exhausted, and contains certain express limitations on the authority of the arbitrator. It further provides that where the parties disagree as to the arbitrability of any grievance, this issue must be determined by a Court before the matter can proceed to arbitration.
6. On or about September 10, 1956, a grievance was filed at defendant's East Springfield, Massachusetts, plant by an employee named J. Dulak. This grievance, National Appeal Grievance No. 1584, arose out of the plaintiff's objection to the defendant's assignment of a different time value
to a manufactured part, known as Style Y-53921, than had previously been recorded for a part known as Style Y-22070.
7. In the grievance meetings held to discuss National Appeal Grievance No. 1584, plaintiff contended that the recorded time value previously established for Style Y-22070 was intended to apply to parts of varying size including the size of Style Y-53921, and that defendant should have applied the existing recorded time value for Style Y-22070 to the manufacture of Style Y-53921 instead of establishing a new time value for this operation, even though the two parts were of different width. Defendant, on the other hand, contended that the recorded time value for Style Y-22070 applied only to that part, that a number of other time values established by time studies existed for other parts of different size manufactured on the same equipment, and that Style Y-53921 was a new operation for which it had a right to establish a new time value.
8. National Appeal Grievance No. 1584 was properly processed through the necessary steps set forth in the National Agreement to bring the grievance to the arbitration procedure.
9. Plaintiff then requested that National Appeal Grievance No. 1584 be submitted to arbitration, but the defendant declined to process the grievance through the arbitration procedure on the ground that it was not arbitrable.
10. On or about September 17, 1956, a grievance was filed at defendant's East Pittsburgh plant by Mario Rua, Section Steward. This grievance, National Appeal Grievance No. 1628, arose out of the plaintiff's objection to the defendant's method of reducing the time value for a certain manufacturing operation after a portion of that operation had been discontinued.
11. In the hearings held to discuss this grievance, plaintiff claimed that defendant improperly reduced the time value for the total operation by removing too much for the discontinued portion of the operation and claimed that a time study should have been taken to determine how much time should be removed from the value. Plaintiff claimed that the time value for the remaining operation was inadequate. Defendant contended that it had properly reduced the time value for the total operation by eliminating the time allowance for the discontinued portion of the operation, but offered to take a time study to determine whether the adjusted time value for the remaining operation was adequate. This offer was refused by ...