U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1964

United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Afl-Cio, Local 116 v. American Machine and Foundry Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided March 9, 1964 · Smith, Kaufman, Marshall

329 F.2d 147; 55 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2684; 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6102 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Jerome S. Rubenstein, New York City (Rubenstein & Rubenstein, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner-appellant., William L. McGuire, New York City (Rogers, Hoge & Hills, New York City, on the brief), for respondent-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

The Torrington Company v. Metal Products Workers Union Local 1645, Uaw, Afl-Cio and International Union Uaw, Afl-Cio (2d Cir. 1966)
Paperhandlers Union No. 1 v. U.S. Trucking Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1977)
Bethlehem Mines Corporation v. United Mine Workers of America Er Al. (3d Cir. 1974)
Communications Equipment Workers, Inc. v. Western Electric Co. (District Court, D. Maryland 1970)
Ludwig Honold Mfg. Co. v. Harold A. Fletcher and United Automobile Workers, Local 416 (3d Cir. 1969)
International Association Of Machinists And Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio v. General Electric Company (2d Cir. 1969)
International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. General Electric Co. (2d Cir. 1969)
Metal Products Workers Union, Local 1645 v. Torrington Co. (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1965)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner-appellant, a union local and respondent-appellee, an employer, in disagreement as to union rights concerning overtime under a collective bargaining agreement, each requested arbitration. After some disagreement as to the terms of a submission, the following text was agreed on:

“Under the terms and provisions of the current labor agreement and other written agreements, does the Company have the right to schedule and require employees to work sufficient and reasonable amounts of overtime and to discipline individual employees for refusing to work such overtime ?”

The arbitrator’s award was couched in the following terms:

“Under the terms and provisions of the current Labor Agreement and other written agreements, the Company has the right to schedule and require employees to work sufficient and reasonable amounts of overtime and to discipline individual employees for refusing to work such overtime, unless in any particular instance the individual employee has a justifiable, valid reason to excuse him from working the required overtime.”

The union moved in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to vacate the award on grounds of partiality, bias, etc, and because the arbitrator exceeded the terms of the submission. The District Court, Irving Ben Cooper, District Judge, denied the motion and the union appeals. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

The claim appears technical in the extreme that the arbitrator, who might have answered the question submitted simply “yes” could not, out of an apparent excess of caution, add the limitation for the benefit of the employees, not objected to by the employer, “unless in any particular instance the individual employee has a justifiable, valid reason to excuse him from working the required overtime.” Any bizarre application of the ruling in individual cases is of course subject to the review provided in the collective bargaining agreement.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.