employers that they had been discharged for alleged participation in the above work stoppage which they deny or avoid by explanation.
15. Local 107, on behalf of the said discharged employees, filed grievances challenging the validity of the discharges pursuant to Articles 43 and 44 of the collective bargaining agreement.
16. Pursuant to the said provisions of the agreement, hearings on the said grievances were scheduled to be held on July 2 and July 6, 1965.
17. The employers on July 1, 1965 obtained a temporary restraining order without hearing upon affidavits enjoining such hearings until further order of this Court.
18. A hearing was held on July 6, 1965 at which all parties appeared by counsel, were afforded an opportunity to present testimony and to make argument. At the conclusion of the hearing counsel for Local 107 moved that the Court dissolve the temporary restraining order previously issued and deny the motion of the Plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction.
19. At the hearing held on July 6, 1965, counsel for Local No. 107 and the International stipulated that if the Plaintiffs should fail to sign at any stage of the projected grievance procedure, a binding submission agreement similar to Exhibits P-3 and P-4 introduced into evidence at the hearing, the Unions would not assert whatever right to strike they had under Sections 3(c), 4(d), 6(b) and Section 1 of Article 43.
20. The Court finds that if the Plaintiffs are compelled to participate in the grievance procedure with respect to the discharge of their said employees they will not suffer immediate and irreparable harm.
21. The Court finds that the provisions of the contract with reference to discharge grievances appear to be conflicting. It further appears at this stage of the proceedings that there is some doubt as to whether the provisions of the contract specifically and clearly exclude the subject of discharges from the grievance procedure.
22. A factual issue for determination in this dispute is presented as to the participation of each of the discharged employees in the unauthorized work stoppage. The Court finds that at this stage of the proceedings it does not clearly appear from the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement that this factual issue is to be determined by the Court rather than by the committees and arbitrator established under the grievance procedure sections of the collective bargaining agreement.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of Section 301 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a).
2. The temporary restraining order which issued on July 1, 1965 was improvidently granted on the basis of the complaint with affidavit attached without the Court then having the benefit of a hearing in which testimony was presented and argument had.
3. After a hearing in which testimony was presented and argument heard, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to make out a case at this stage of the proceedings, that the discharges in question here are specifically and clearly excluded from the grievance procedures established by the collective bargaining agreement and that the Plaintiffs would suffer immediate and irreparable harm if required to participate in the grievance process established by the labor agreement to which they all were signatories.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.