Opinion
Opinion filed February 8, 1962.
1. LABOR RELATIONS.
Employer who participated in arbitration proceedings provided for by collective bargaining agreement was estopped from challenging award of arbitrator in Chancery Court.
2. LABOR RELATIONS.
Chancery Court had no authority to review merits of grievance or award of arbitrator provided for by collective bargaining agreement.
FROM SHELBYJOHN S. MONTEDONICO, DANIEL D. CANALE, Memphis, MONTEDONICO, BOONE, GILLILAND, HEISKELL LOCH, Memphis, of counsel, for appellant.
ANTHONY J. SABELLA, Memphis, for appellees.
Declaratory action to determine rights of parties under collective bargaining agreement and to set aside arbitrator's award of involving discharge of grievant, submitted to the arbitrator under the terms and provisions of the agreement. The Chancery Court, Shelby County, Ceylon B. Frazer, Chancellor, sustained the defendant union's demurrer to the bill and the employer appealed. The Supreme Court, Prewitt, Chief Justice, held that the Chancery Court was without jurisdiction to review the merits of grievance or arbitrator's award where the arbitrator was provided for by the bargaining agreement.
Affirmed.
This is a declaratory action to determine the rights of the parties under a collective bargaining agreement subsisting between the Company as employer, and the Union as the bargaining representative of certain company's employees, and the setting aside of an arbitrator's award of agreements involving the discharge of the grievant, submitted to the arbitrator under the terms and provisions of said agreement.
On September 9, 1960, when the grievant was discharged (services unsatisfactory), he was then and for some months prior thereto had been employed by the company in the capacity of assistant supervisor.
Under the agreement assistant supervisors were excluded.
The grievance attacking the discharge of this assistant supervisor was filed solely under and by virtue of the grievance procedure set forth and established in this collective bargaining agreement.
The arbitration award sought to be set aside in this action was authorized by the provisions of said collective bargaining agreement.
It appears that although assistant supervisors were excluded from the bargaining unit, the arbitrator found that he was entitled to certain benefits and rights provided in this collective bargaining agreement for members of the bargaining unit.
The Union demurred to the bill, which was sustained because the company participated in the grievance procedure and arbitration of this grievance as allegedly shown on the face of the original bill. It is estopped from here challenging the award of the arbitrator.
The bill did not show on its face any limitation or restriction of the power of the arbitrator to act upon the grievance, and the bill did not show the arbitrator exceeded his powers.
The judgment of the lower court sustaining the demurrer was for the reason that the collective bargaining agreement empowered, and authorized the arbitrator to rely upon the issues referred to him by the parties, and accordingly deprived this Court of jurisdiction to overrule the conclusions of the arbitrator.
The Chancellor sustained the third ground set forth in the demurrer that the bill did not show on its face that the arbitrator exceeded his powers conferred upon him by the collective bargaining agreement.
The Chancellor was of the opinion that since the agreement provided for arbitration, and the arbitrator having acted there was no appeal from his decision and therefore the Chancery Court had no jurisdiction. To this conclusion we agree.
The courts are without jurisdiction to review the merits of a grievance or arbitrator's award. United Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403; United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424.
The ground of authority to the arbitrator in the present case is a very broad one.
We conclude that the arbitrator having been provided for by the bargaining agreement, his award is not subject to review by the courts and the decree of the Chancellor is affirmed, the effect of which was to restore Fooshee to his position.
BURNETT, FELTS, WHITE and DYER, JUSTICES, concur.