The opinion of the court was delivered by: GRIM
In this action brought by the union to enforce an arbitrator's award under a collective bargaining agreement, the plaintiff union has moved for summary judgment.
'The Employer will not permit any work to be performed for it, directly or indirectly, outside of its own shop by any other concern unless such concern is in contractual relationship with the Union and has complied with the terms thereof.'
A supplement to the agreement, dated March 30, 1960, provided that the employer was to continue to employ as many employees in the Philadelphia plant as were employed there in 1959, and also that:
'The Employer shall not conduct manufacturing elsewhere unless the Philadelphia plant is being operated on a full time work basis, and the Union consents to the manufacturing elsewhere as provided in the Collective Agreement.'
Further supplements, in letter form, likewise dated March 30, 1960, provided:
'It is our understanding that conditioned upon your Philadelphia plant being operated on a full time work basis as provided by our Memorandum Agreement of March 30, 1960, we will have no objections to your opening a plant in Grifton, North Carolina, provided further that the Grifton Plant is under a Collective Agreement with the Local Union there of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union.'
'We shall expect you to use your best efforts and good faith in helping the I.L.G.W.U. organize your shop in Grifton, North Carolina.
'If it should appear that additional time is necessary for this purpose, we shall be very glad to sit down with you to discuss this matter.'
Defendant opened a plant at Grifton, North Carolina, but none of the employees of that plant joined the union. The union contended that by opening the plant in North Carolina defendant breached the collective bargaining agreement. This contention gave rise to a dispute, which was submitted to arbitration under the following provision of the agreement:
'All controversies or disputes, if any, shall in the first instance, be taken up by and between the firm and the Shopchairman. Should they be unable to agree within twenty-four (24) hours, after the dispute arises, the Employer will then take up such dispute with the representative of the Union. In the event that they are unable to reach a satisfactory agreement, within forty-eight (48) hours thereafter, then the matter shall be immediately submitted to ALLAN DASH, who shall act as the Impartial Arbitrator and his decision shall be final and binding. * * * It is the intention and agreement of the parties that the procedure established in this agreement for the adjustment of disputes shall be the exclusive means for the determination of all disputes, complaints or grievances specified herein, expressly including all strikes, stoppages, lockouts and any and all claims, demands or acts arising therefrom. Neither party shall institute any proceedings in a court of law or equity other than to compel arbitration, as provided in this agreement, or to enforce the award of an arbitrator. This provision shall be a complete defense to any action instituted contrary to this agreement.'
The arbitrator, Allan Dash, held hearings and rendered an opinion and award. He upheld the union's contention that the employer set up the North Carolina plant in violation of the agreement, and denied the employer's contention that the North Carolina plant had been opened only after securing union approval and that it had been opened with the union's permission. He directed that the union be given access to the employer's books at both plants to discover how much the employer owes plaintiff union by reason of defendant employer's failure to make payments to union health insurance, retirement, and severance pay founds.
The only problem before the court is whether the arbitrator's award should be enforced. There is ample authority upholding the power of a United States District Court to enforce the award of an arbitrator in a dispute over the alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreement: Philadelphia Dress Joint Board v. Rosinsky, D.C., 134 F.Supp. 607, aff'd 229 F.2d 438 (3d Cir. 1956); A. L. Kornman Co. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers, 264 ...