Appeal, No. 449, Jan. T., 1961, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 6 of Philadelphia County, June T., 1960, No. 1052, in case of Sidney Harwitz v. Matthew O. Adams, president Local 585 UAW, Local 585 United Automobile Workers of America, and Selas Corporation of America. Judgment affirmed.
H. L. Floum, with him H. Weiner, and James Francis McCort, for appellant.
Alan R. Howe, with him Edward Davis, for appellees.
Theodore Voorhees, with him George J. Miller, and Dechert, Price & Rhoads, for defendant, appellee.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O'brien, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE O'BRIEN
Appellant, in February of 1958, was an employee of appellee, Selas Corporation of America (Salas). On February 8, 1958, he left the job before completion of his shift, complaining of a back ache. He remained absent from the job until April 16, 1958, when he reported for work and was offered a job as shop cleaner and porter. Harwitz refused this offer of employment and, on April 25, 1958, Selas notified him by letter that in accordance with the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between it and the appellee Union his employment was terminated.
The Union filed a grievance on behalf of Harwitz, which was processed through the various steps of the grievance procedure, except that the Union did not request arbitration until about a year later.
While the foregoing procedures were being followed, Harwitz filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act and eventually a stipulation was entered into between Harwitz and Selas' compensation insurance carrier awarding Harwitz compensation for twenty-five (25) weeks of total disability. The Union then asked for arbitration of the original grievance on the theory that it was being held in abeyance pending the outcome of the compensation claim. The arbitrator ruled against this contention and held that the time allowed for seeking arbitration had elapsed. Relief was therefore denied to Harwitz without reference to the merits of the controversy. Harwitz continued to press for an arbitration on the merits but Selas and the Union refused to submit the matter to arbitration.
Subsequently, Harwitz filed, in the court of common pleas, a petition for a rule to show cause why the matter should not be submitted to arbitration. The rule was granted but no answers were filed and no party took any further action in connection therewith. Instead, the Union made a demand for arbitration by
the American Arbitration Association and Selas ...