The opinion of the court was delivered by: FOLLMER
This case concerns a labor dispute involving the discharge by defendant-employer of an employee and a grievance concerning the Union Security Clause of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
This matter is before the Court on Motions for Summary Judgment filed by both plaintiff and defendant, both of whom have filed affidavits in support of their respective motions.
Plaintiff seeks an order directing defendant to proceed with arbitration of the said grievances in the manner provided in a Collective Bargaining Agreement effective February 16, 1965. Defendant contends that the Complaint involves interpretation of various sections of the Agreement and that the said interpretation is not a matter for arbitration, that it is, under the Agreement, a matter required to be submitted to the International Representative of the Union and a representative specifically designated by the Company.
There is no factual dispute in this case. Defendant failed to deny any of the allegations of the Complaint, therefore the allegations of the Complaint must be deemed as admitted. Rule 8(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Count One of the Complaint avers that on February 16, 1965 Union (plaintiff) and employer (defendant) entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement effective for a term beginning February 16, 1965 and ending April 1, 1968. The said Agreement, at Article XVII, Grievance Procedure, provides as follows:
"Section 2. . . . Step 4: In the event the dispute or grievance cannot be settled, the same shall be submitted by either or both parties to arbitration, as set forth in Article XVIII hereof."
Article V, Section 1, of the Agreement provides:
"Section 1. Management of the plants and the direction of the working force, including the right to hire, assign, suspend, transfer, promote, discharge or discipline for just cause, . . . is vested exclusively in the Company."
In Count One it is also averred that on or about November 27, 1965 the employer discharged an employee, one Melvin Herring, and thereafter the Union filed and processed a grievance protesting Herring's discharge. When no settlement was reached, the Union referred the matter to arbitration, but the employer, contending that the grievance was not processed timely, refused to arbitrate.
Count Two of the Complaint sets forth another portion of the Agreement, to wit:
"Section 1. All employees covered by the terms of this agreement shall, as a condition of employment, become and remain a member of the Union not later than the thirty-first (31st) day of employment with the Company in accordance with the terms of the National Labor Relations Act of 1947 as amended." (Article III, Union Security.)
In Count Two it is also averred that on or about January 14, 1966 an employee, one Kuykendall, filed a grievance charging the employer with violations of Article III, Section 1, of the Agreement and the grievance was processed through all intermediate steps of the grievance procedure and was not satisfactorily settled. The ...