Opinion
No. 171, Docket 27163.
Argued January 15, 1962.
Decided January 31, 1962.
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, John R. Bartels, Judge.
Defendant Procter Gamble Manufacturing Company appeals from an order granting summary judgment for plaintiff and requiring defendant to proceed to arbitration of a grievance concerning the working foreman, Frank Wilson, in accordance with certain provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the parties, effective until June 23, 1962. Opinion below reported at 195 F. Supp. 64. Affirmed and stay vacated.
Jack G. Evans, Cincinnati, Ohio (Harold S. Freeman, Dinsmore, Shohl, Barrett, Coates Deupree, Cincinnati, Ohio, Eugene H. Nickerson and Hale, Stimson, Russell Nickerson, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.
Martin J. Loftus, Newark, New Jersey (Sabino J. Berardino, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MEDINA, MOORE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This is a companion case with that bearing the same title and described as "Civil 27162, 298 F.2d 644." Two grievances were involved but the one relating to alleged discrimination against R. Spittel, a union official, by not paying him the minimum wage for his job is not before us, as Judge Bartels held that this grievance was not arbitrable under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, and the Union has not filed any cross-appeal. The other grievance was filed by the Union on September 12, 1960, and it charged the employer with a violation of the collective bargaining agreement in the following terms: "Article XII, Section 5, Foreman working — Violation of agreements." Judge Bartels granted summary judgment for plaintiff ordering defendant to proceed to arbitration of this, the "Wilson Grievance." The opinion below is reported at 195 F. Supp. 64.
While the procedural background is different the issue before the District Court was the same as that presented in "Civil 27162," decided herewith, and the reasons for affirming Judge Bartels' order are the same. We, of course, express no opinion on the subject of whether Judge Bartels correctly decided the issue relating to the grievance concerning Spittel, as that issue is not before us.
Judge Smith agrees with what we have already written in the foregoing portion of this opinion, but he dissents solely on the same ground on which he dissented in "Civil 27162."
Affirmed and stay vacated.
I dissent as stated in the majority opinion.