*1 and Justices Yanderbilt, Justice For affirmance —Chief Burling, Jacobs Wacheneeld, Heher, Olipi-iant, Brennan —7.
For reversal —None. DeVOURSNEY, LONGO, KENNEDY, MEL ANTHONY MARTIN CHIVALK, SCERBO, WIESE, BEN JOSEPH EDWARD GEISLER, REYNOLDS, Sr., AND WILLIAM E. WALTER PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ELEC- v. WESTINGHOUSE PENNSYLVANIA, CORP., A OF TRIC CORPORATION DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Argued 25, September October 1954 Decided *3 Mr. for appellants (Messrs. Morion Siavis the cause argued Gross & Blumberg, attorneys). Dill, Jr.,
Mr. for respondent William L. cause argued Horner, attorneys). Tams \£ (Messrs. Strylcer, the court was delivered opinion by themselves and Brennan, sue behalf of J. Plaintiffs defendant’s of 900 upwards hourly other paid Day to recover Labor Jersey City plant the terms of a collective provided bargaining agree- Electrical, ment entered the defendant with into United and Machine of America covering Radio Workers (U.E.) Plaintiffs recovered of 21 of defendant’s plants. Division, after a trial Court, Law Superior judgment The Appellate without a 25 N. J. jury, Super. (1953). *4 reversed, 68 We allowed Division 29 N. J. Super. (1953). N. J. 79 certification on 15 plaintiffs’ petition, (1954). Defendant refused to because of pay on each work action of the hourly paid employees concerted 11, 1951 12, 1951 to September but two from day July in work after fell on Day September 3) stopping (Labor 6 8-hour shifts. hours scheduled only 3% found, and do not plaintiffs challenge The trial judge was the officers promoted by that the concerted action finding, 284 unwarranted pres- local union and was taken “to put
sure con- in the then pending negotiations” employer clause seniority to revise the cerning company proposal officers of of the collective The agreement. bargaining the Labor local union were told before on Friday morning made would not be Day for the payment holiday shifts on Friday. unless the worked employees complete Nonetheless, in a after body work employees stopped y25 hours of work. suit,
The and on behalf of the brought by the col- is based against employer, upon provisions lective and the between bargaining agreement company union. in their However, the of the standing own to maintain the action is not right upon Drivers, etc., 680 Milk Christiansen v. Local questioned. 126 N. 508 J. Eq. 1940). (Ch. while slow in is now Widespread recognition, coming, common that collective use to agreements bargaining give See, for National Labor Relations legal rights. example A., Act, Act as amended 29 C. sec. by Taft-Hartley U. S. 185; Annotation, 95 A. L. R. 10. The when day past denied courts to such upon recognition agreements grounds little, established if they merely very usages any, consideration, lacked or were unen legal consequences, forceable for want of mutuality of or reflected duress. remedy, Teller, 1 Labor and Disputes Collective secs. Bargaining, 158-162 The end of such was forecast (1940). concepts with the and of the adoption promotion ex public policy federal and much state pressed legislation and fostering collective labor between unions and encouraging bargaining tool to achieve and employers prime maintain indus trial peace uninterrupted production to further essential social and economic See National objectives. Labor Rela Act, tions 49 Stat. as amended (1935), the Taft A., Act, 61 Stat. 136 C. Hartley U. S. secs. (1947), et New Constitution Jersey I, Art. seq., par. a written contract the terms signing embodying agreed as the final and an essential upon regarded step
385
an
as itself
and
is viewed
bargaining process;
agreement
and mini-
effective instrument
labor relations
of stabilizing
H. J. Heinz Co.
industrial strife
its
mizing
term.
during
514,
Ct.
Board,
v. National Labor
311
S.
61 S.
Relations
U.
320,
But the
in many
collective
respects
bargaining agreement
a
novelty
courts
not
problems
presented
raising
under
ordinary contracts nor
dealt with
traditional
readily
principles of contract law. Less than 30
one com-
years ago
mentator observed that “it
is somewhat
dis-
to
surprising
cover that
their
nature has never
carefully
been
con-
legal
decision,”
sidered or
defined in an
court
American
precisely
Fuchs,
Law,
Collective Labor
in American
10
Agreements
Louis L.
1 (1925).
St.
Rev.
Several courts which have
since
an
have
hard
attempted
analysis
found it
to
precisely
define the jural
relation of the
covered
to
and
and duties under the
contracting parties
rights
contract.
fact that
collective
agreement
bargaining
establishes a structure of
not
employment relations
just
known
but for
from
particular
time to
persons
time
the contract
term and
employed
always
members of or
to be
members of
desiring
contracting
union, has led courts to
say
resembles
agreement
* * *
“a trade
likened
tariffs
estab-
carrier,
lished
a
standard provisions prescribed by
authorities
insurance
supervising
policies,
utility
service,”
schedules of rates
rules for
I.
J.
Case Co. v.
Board,,
National Labor Relations
64
Ct.
U. S.
S.
576,
issue is the very narrow one of the col interpretation lective and more of the bargaining particularly agreement, provisions We pay. plaintiffs governing holiday agree that the canons of on the ordi construction bear brought the mean nary fully serviceable in ascertaining contract.are of the ing in a collective employed language bargaining It be that the well known reluctance of agreement. may *7 of labor avail themselves of a negotiators to agreements services in their often need lawyer’s will create more drafting for and but stand interpretation its difficulties the aggravate of ards construction will differ for It not that reason. is also true that these for agreements provide increasingly of settlements differences and interpretation over applica tion by arbitration does so (this not agreement provide), but we understand, do not and neither side that we suggests, should take note any of new or different of canons construc tion evolved in the labor arbitration of process peculiar to collective application contracts. It is obvious bargaining that the function of the important collective bargaining agree ment to further industrial indeed de tranquility justifies, mands, that the “be construed narrowly not and agreement technically broadly but and so as to its evident accomplish aims,” Webb, Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. 31 Am. v. Jur. supra, Labor, 113; sec. and that has been the decided of tendency Teller, the cases. However, supra, p. as plaintiffs’ brief with that mind, urges, general the canons precept construction of to a commercial applied in Mant ell agreement v. International Plastic Harmonica N. Corp., 379, 141 J. Eq. 386-387 & A. can and 1947), should (E. us here: govern general purpose agreement “The of the is to be considered in ascer- taining particular design parties the of sense terms. The of the to a written be contract is to collected from the instrument an en- tirety. writing a Dis And is to have reasonable construction. single emphasis upon provision proportionate a does not serve the interpretation. Words, phrases purpose to be and clauses are not of as a but the context and the contractual scheme isolated whole, related to given meaning probable comports with inten and qualified by may the terms be context. tion. The literal sense of part significance particular writing The a of the is determined parts. It of all its is the revealed intention a consideration word, interpretation is be effectuated. In standard to reasonably integration meaning would be attached design, intelligent person. And, quest common objects parties, circumstances, and attendant situation of the they thereby attain, regarded.” striving to be are See also were King, (1949). Casriel v. N. J. to the contro- important
The of the provisions are the versy following: Strikes, Stoppages, and Lockouts “Section VII — officially will cause sanction A. The Union the Locals or part any (including sit- their downs, stay-ins, slow-downs, take strike members to cause or stoppage work) or other * * *” Agreement. the life of this X—Hours of Work “Section forty (40) eight (8) be hours based on basic week will work per week, Monday Friday days per day, (5) inclusive. five hours twenty-four day period beginning employee’s hour An work workshift, regularly assigned starting and his time on his with his day days day on he is not at the same time rest starts regularly assigned His work week starts his scheduled work. Monday. period Variations in hours and the schedules work subjects negotiations.” several are local of hours of the shifts Holidays and Vacations “Section XII — *8 Holidays Day, Holidays Companies by will the be New Year’s a. observed Independence Day, Day, Washington’s Birthday, Labor Memorial Sunday Holidays falling Day, Thanksgiving, will and Christmas. Monday. be observed on completed (3) hourly paid employees months’ who have three b. All immediately holiday paid preceding the will be continuous service Monday holiday observed between
for shift hours on established their paid employees Friday Hourly who were laid and both inclusive. (5) years after are rehired within five off lack of work and for completed (3) layoff, and three months’ continuous service who had layoff, year prior employment (1) to their of at least one had a total holiday pay. will the above also receive Hourly paid employees paid at c. be such hours will XI, pay period rate, average for the roll defined in Section as earned involved. only hourly payment employees paid The will be d. above made day holiday as of who are on tbe active roll the before the within wages during and earn some week in which the week who the the holiday preceding four falls or the weeks. employees paid holidays e. be the seven Salaried will observed by Companies falling week, Monday Friday, work within the both inclusive.” fact, The trial as a and found judge again plaintiffs do not contest his that the of the finding, conduct in their shift hours with the curtailing encouragement officers of union work local constituted a in stoppage of the violation first clause from quoted section VII however, The in has not chosen this agreement. company, court to assert that it by reason thereof was or is entitled to terminate the in and toto to be relieved of all thereunder. There are obligation practical evident reasons why should company conclude that such not an step course. The expedient bottoms its defense company upon the narrow their conduct the ground and each of them put themselves in a where position they could satisfy precedent condition prescribed section XII (b) payment pay, namely, they be hourly “who paid employees have three completed months (3) continuous service immediately preceding holiday” (Emphasis supplied). plaintiffs’ gist argument opposing company’s
contention is that “continuous service” means and was in- tended by the to mean no parties more than that the em- been, should have ployees they were, on the company’s “active” payroll three-month is, during period, the “status” of employees continuously time. insist that this They words meaning have acquired in labor relations and parlance to their point use widespread that sense clauses of collective bargaining agreements seniority, vacation governing pay pensions. They cite arbitration awards so the words in construing connection with clauses, such that the awards concluding show a “consistent of ‘service’ accumulation, equating seniority and ‘continu- *9 They argue status.” of employment the continuity ous’ to irresistibly us also before points that (d) as that sense inasmuch paragraph of the words in use an entitled to to be XII provides section continuous three months’ who has required employee the day as of before “on the active roll has to be only service earn some week and wages within the holiday the observed falls any holiday week in which such during weeks.” four preceding considera insufficient gives
But plaintiffs’ argument XII, particu of section provisions pertinent tion other X. Dealing with section as are interrelated larly they and first with service” separately, the two words “continuous “service,” it is to be taken as we cannot agree the word X “status.” Section pre with employment synonymous and section XII Monday Friday, week from scribes work when named only holiday for holiday pay provides The clear Friday. day Monday impli on from observed was intended to assure holiday provision cation is employee earning the take-home an pay regularly be diminished when labor should not wages performed work', his day is observed on a holiday during regular thus illumined as The word “service” is contemplating week. labor in course ordinary during pre performance period. schedules the three-month operative scribed work XII does oppose of section but buttresses Paragraph (d) makes it clear that it conclusion. That paragraph this roll; active he that the be must employee not enough earned some for labor wages performed also have in which the falls or of the four weeks week but holiday. Finally, particularly persuasive preceding “labor under contemplates performed,” (b) that “service” XII holiday section is at the pay employee’s (c) earned rate involved” payroll period “average enhanced earnings” time as provided by section (“straight hours,” for his “established shift as prescribed XI) eight X, except section varied local negotiations, hours which was not the case here. conclusion is irresistible *10 for for em- holiday that the were parties pay contracting labor, is, “con- ployees regularly performing rendering tinuous service” the three-month during period. that,
Plaintiffs the as to the notwithstanding urge light the the thus from context of parties’ agree- meaning gained ment, we should conclude that means “service” “employ- labor, ment status” and not of because performance provided was here as “additional wages of services” as in the a part nature of “wage package” boost disguised to down amount of the wage keep increase into the basic rate. straight wage entering wage We are history cited to the of wage negotiations during after recent war when inhibited controls wage of amounts increases in rates and the basic practice up grew benefits, permissible of such as granting “fringe” holiday in lieu thereof. There are pay, two answers to this argument. The first that the record is barren absolutely of evi- dence that the instant holiday came into this pay provision as of a part contract The second is if “wage package.” holiday provided was lieu of a pay commensurate wage increase we should expect holiday to pay provision call for the for a named payment holiday observed on Saturday Sunday. The limitation holidays observed week is basic work conclusive in the circumstances here shown that was intended provision to allow the employees time off on the observed without holidays attendant reduc- in weekly tion take-home pay.
Plaintiffs also endeavor to support of interpretation “service” “status” by reference to the second sentence of XII section which (b) provides for holiday pay to employees rehired within years lay-off five after a period prior to which had three they completed months of continuous service and at year’s least one total with the employment We can company. find no whatever that sentence relevancy to the question “service.” It meaning clear to us that adds merely sentence group eligible for holiday such qualify pay employees as been rehired within the three months’ period immediately preceding first under eligible qualify and thus
holiday, hired other them from sentence, distinguishing time or the first either months’ period within the three not understand We do lay-off. after more than five years they on whose behalf or those employees the plaintiffs small necessarily within the any employees group sue include second sentence. covered means labor conclude, then, that “service” performed We clause, and turn to the pay context *11 on the daj's the refusal of the employees whether question to 6 of their sched- more than hours mentioned to work 3% of the “continu- shifts broke the continuity uled eight-hour It does not called the agreement. appear service for ous” of concerned with any employees from the record shift hours the scheduled during suit were absent this months’ Labor period Day the three before throughout days hours on the but two) (all except during their shifts. In the sense to complete Avhen refused they each day in some of labor on work hours they put labor, and it did render is con- they continuous the period they their satisfied thereby requisite tended on behalf service.” Reliance is put “continuous again of performing which, of section XII it upon paragraph (d) by plaintiffs even extended contended, absences obviously imports is interrupt continuity service, at a time do not weeks thereunder are to earn required only this because the week in which the falls holiday “some wages” weeks preceding the four be on before the day as of observed holiday. the active roll that “continuous” conclude service does mayWe of labor performance during every not contemplate work In the every day. very shift hour of nature scheduled no such really “there is as continuous thing labor. things sicknesses, week-ends, recreation all are Holidays, periods, of one’s continuity occupation, but would breaks its continuity.” United States v. necessarily destroy Perry, Cir., is 1912). Paragraph read, to be (8 (d) 55 F. 2d no more than that think, as breaks of service implying we to reasonable would appeal reasons which or other personal shown circumstances in the particular men to be excusable here, We are dealing of service. will not destroy continuity refusal of employees and deliberate however with concerted encouraged shifts —conduct their scheduled to complete to attribute common sense union officers. It opposes local willful stoppages to excuse to the parties’ language meaning such things. not to do violative of the solemn undertaking made Indeed, clearly implicit provision contrary at sum for established holiday pay “paid computing shifts are shift The “established shifts” eight-hour hours.” varied through under X the hours bemay section except varied by If shift hours are agreement, “local negotiations.” less than for more or eight accordingly paid demand that in the instant case hours. But them an this court render awarding eight-hour judgment their unilateral act in abridging payment despite on all but two scheduled shifts eight-hour by 25% 50% the Labor the work in the three-month before days period what Thus seek to Day holiday. they by judgment under the if the would not be entitled to have contract they curtailment of the shifts had been agreed upon negotiations which the meaning company. Giving writing *12 attached it a by “reasonably person,” would be intelligent Plastic Har- insist, as Mantell v. International plaintiffs monica their contention must be deemed to be Corp., supra, merit, it be said that without cannot plainly reasonably the these could obtain employees parties contemplated their willful of the contract what could they violation not ask if what did had been done with the they company’s an is a of interpretation complete Such agreement. negation the of the collective primary purpose bargaining agreement; it fosters resort to instead of to stoppages negotiations The only settle reasonable is that disputes. interpretation the unilateral of shift houTS was not within adjustment the service in category excusable the interruptions the sense and therefore contemplated by destroyed agreement continuity. its con the practical
Finally, plaintiffs argue effect must be given the contract the parties struction of occurred when stoppages occasions and that on past It true holiday pay. were not refused in a col contained of doubtful meaning words construing the parties the past practices lective agreement bargaining accorded will be under the in like situations arising Co., R. & Nav. Burton v. Oregon-Washingion great weight. However, 1934). 38 P. 2d Ct. (Sup. Ore. There factual premise. plaintiffs’ evidence does not support three within the stoppages occurring was that after some proof was not refused. holiday pay months’ before a period was terminated before in those situations stoppage But at this case, plant for example, That was holiday. stoppage Day, in connection Thanksgiving end until September in suit did not which led to dispute the three-month after the 11, about two weeks beginning was Holiday pay Day. with Thanksgiving period ending with a company testimony, to the consistent according paid, “after a situa more trouble in such cases not to borrow policy work.” And are back at and the up people tion cleared that under this testified plant officer charge company 1951 would also Day for Labor that policy their shift hours if had not curtailed been paid officers were told when the union Friday before full shifts were be unless paid it would not morning in this instance was con But the refusal to pay worked. to, testified to as with, being contrary practice sistent when the conduct constituting stoppages, followed after here, and continued through before began occurred, when that On the two occasions prior holiday. the evidence was that at the Jersey City plant, neither did not pay. company
Affirmed. I am in accord with Judge J. (dissenting).
Wachenfeld, *13 have established their to the that the plaintiffs right Conlon I would award them question. judgment pay Super. in his N. J. opinion, reasons expressed Ct. 1953). (Super. Vanderbilt, and Justices For Justice affirmance —Chief Oliphant, and Brennan —6.
Heher, Burling, Jacobs Waoheneeld —1. For reversal—Justice CORPORATION, AMERICA, A STANLEY COMPANY OF PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. HERCULES POWDER COM- PANY, CORPORATION, A DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Argued September 20, 1954 Decided October