*1 given if the contract an- favorable that could be construction construction, it, less favorable to other reasonable adopted. regard- argues it recover the bond
Plaintiff is entitled to contractor paragraph less of 8 of the contract and the fact the obligated pay supplying those subcontracts to material for project. argument is that the paragraph 6 contract, agrees purchase “The Contractor all machinery” (emphasis equiva- materials and added) is the lent of an by paying money equiva- to obtain or its buy lent, to price. Many in support authorities are cited argument. meaning The conclusion reached the contract, including paragraph 8, unnecessary it makes decide the effect of the paragraph contract if 8 were omitted.— Affirmed.
All except concur J., part. who takes Justices Stuart, Packinghouse Union No. United Food Allied Packing Workers, AFL-CIO, appellant, v. Needham Com City corpo Sioux pany, Inc., Beef, Dressed d/b/a
ration, appellee. No. 50664. (Reported 141) N.W.2d *2 January 15, 1963. Colton,
Harry Smith, City, and Fruchtman H. Sioux Illinois, Watt, Chicago, appellant. City, Marshall, Vizintos, of Sioux
Shull, Mayne, Marks & appellee. Gilker, Smith, Arkansas, and of Fort James A. employees of Plaintiff, agent for bargaining Hays, J.— bargain- defendant, a collective and entered into the defendant being following agreement provision, ing which contained the paragraph 33-C(5) thereof: Company dispute
“In between the the event a shall arise interpretation of proper with reference the the Union and such contract application provisions of this (sic) the parties, of the by mutual dispute cannot be settled upon the a board of arbitration dispute shall be referred to such * * * have Board shall Arbitration request Union. Said provisions of this con- interpret apply authority * ** Company and binding upon the shall be Its award tract. (Italics added.) employees involved.” agreed provided: “It paragraph agreement, employees shall agreement the period of this during the slowdown, any not call shall or sanction engage in and the Union inaugerated strike, and no lockout shall be stoppage work by Company.” (sic) spe- by seeks brought the Union equitable action
This cifically enforce arbitration Company grievances of certain filed the Union and Company which the refuses to arbitrate. Generally, the facts as May set forth in pleadings are —In Company discharged an employee, discharge such being arbitral just cause, as to whether it was for as authorized paragraph 8(a) agreement. bargaining Following such discharge 190 employees jobs left their and have refused just return until the discharge cause for the employee one adjusted. Company been contends that by walking employees out paragraph breached 9 of the bargaining agreement and that no'longer the same is in force seriously It is not effect. contended this court that the did not walk job workers off the still refusing Also, by return thereto. counterclaim asks sub- *3 damages stantial on account of walkout. made application to the court to points rule law, three pro- 105, vided under rule R. C. (1) wit: P.. Plaintiff not entitled to relief since Iowa law specific denies enforcement of executory agreement an (2) to arbitrate. Plaintiff not entitled to relief since it has waived the to enforce pro- vision, by filing walkout and complaint before the NLRB (3) grievance enforce its claim. No filed within required time by agreement expired. to arbitrate has trial sustained defendant’s contention in (1) as stated Nos. (2) rejected 3, above leaving No. for further determination damage presented by issue the counterclaim. Plaintiff granted permission appeal 332, under rule R. C. P.
I. Error No. 1 is to the effect that the issues raised in the ease must be determined under law, Federal not the state. It is questions conceded come within purview here 1947, 301(a), L., section at C., U. S. Stat. 29 U. S. section 185(a), provides which as follows: “Suits for violation of con- employer organization tracts between a labor representing industry employees affecting in an commerce as defined in this any chapter, may or between such labor organizations, brought be any jurisdiction district court the United having States respect parties, of the without in controversy thé amount citizenship regard parties.” without
885
Supreme Court,
The United States
while
may
State Courts
hear and determine
coming
controversies
301(a),
section
doing they
held that
so
apply
must
and follow
the Federal law. Dowd Box Co. Courtney,
502,
v.
368 U. S.
82
519,
S. Ct.
Appellee
argument
concedes
that Federal
law must
applied
spend
be
so
need
assigned
we
further time
this
except
say
error
that under Federal
agreements
law
to arbi
specifically
trate
enforced.
United Steelworkers
Co.,
America
Mfg.
564,
1343,
v. American
363 U. S.
80A Ct.
S.
Ed.2d 1409; Steelworkers of Enterprise United America v. Wheel Corp., 1358, and Car 363 U. S. 80A Ct. 4 L. S. Ed.2d 1424.
II. Error is claimed on the court’s ruling that to by arbitration was waived appellant the walkout. The cites and relies the three cases, steelworker last above cited. In those eases arbitration was in ordered but none of them was the breach of a no-strike clause involved in as it is the instant ease. We do find the exact before has been us determined, dealing however there cases no-strike with the case, Atkinson v. Refining supra, clause. Sinclair action is an Refining the Company damages for a of breach recover a no-strike agreement. in bargaining clause Defendant moved stay denied, stay pending arbitration. The arbitra- expressly provides that saying agreement the
the place only option of Union. At no tion invoked at the the be agree to arbitrate at the behest in does the Union the contract elsewhere, Company is to take its claim Company. of the 50, v. Inc. In Drake Bakeries which it now done. has International, AFL- Confectionery Workers Bakery American 474, 1346, Ed.2d 254, 82 Ct. 8 L. decided S. CIO, 870 U. S. a case, supra, court ordered the date as the Sinclair the same a breach a no-strike stay damages on account of of action all- holding upon the pending It bases its clause arbitration. arbitrate, saying agreement in inclusive Company its “obligated to arbitrate agreement arbitration damages forbidden strikes the Union”. claim from contended, case the While the Drake Bakeries (see supra), Lincoln there “quid pro quo” rule case under the action arbitrate, the no such court states was a waiver In Company and no decision was made thereto. was taken a waiver squarely faced with issue of instant case we are of no-strike clause. right to arbitrate because breach case, said, page supra, the court In Warrior Gulf agreement may bargaining “A treat 583 of 363 U. S.: collective leaving manage- specific practices, the rest with certain When, subject possibility stoppages. of work to the ment but agree- however, no-strike clause is included absolute very everything management does ment, real a sense then * * subject to the quo” “quid pro rule will followed Whether the be of a no-strike clause constitutes declaring breach extent agreement depends upon rights to arbitrate under waiver of Clearly, 301(a), supra. be taken of section the view to strikes, stoppage by is not conducive to rule, work etc. said tranquillity progress. economic If the view taken that a merely grievance which another incident should strike is violations, Com- contract it would seem the as are other decided many nothing rights relinquished valuable received pany away from. agreements will be' shied return entirely 301(a) emascu- purpose section will be In fact If, that a no-strike hand, other the view is taken lated. *5 says right and that if the has- clause means what it arising of differences it and require arbitration between has a similar Company then the have the along the road to its we well Union abide tranquillity. It “should have its management labor and not cake “quid pro quo” advanced and We think view eat it too.” ease, supra, and rule to is the sound sensible the Lincoln and trial court adopt. This is the view effect taken with the being applied no conflict though Iowa laws were we see actually it was Federal law laws and think that Federal correct We think the trial was used. grievances filed Union had waived its arbitrate the its walkout. find no merit therein urged
Two matters are but we other no comment thereon. make order of trial -court .is affirmed cause remanded The re- pending further therein. —Affirmed manded. J., C. Peterson,
Garfield, Larson, Thompson, Snell Moore, JJ., concur. J., Thornton, dissents. J., part. takes no
Stuart, (dissenting) respectfully dissent. The J. Thornton, —I to hold pleadings in be construed this case should not or stands undenied. violation of the no-strike clause is admitted ready under rule Rules is for decision Civil Procedure. for the
Further, parties agreed on a tribunal have proper questions arising, “with reference determination provisions of this contract.” interpretation application the no-strike not a narrow one. It includes This instigated at The fact clause. company determinative. request of the union should not be or not has been violation agreed. has so Whether there proper to consider the arbitrators no-strike clause *6 merits determining grievance. go A would tbe waiver question. majority opinion is error in What I to be the believe a violation of a clause no-strike that once evidence longer required to arbitrate. Under appears parties are no parties violations both provision for arbitration the broad by the arbitrators. must be considered the union provisions of contract where this Under in accordance with the contract requested arbitration denied no company is compelled. he proceedings should award of the arbitrators. agreed to be hound It has rights. it damage complete it has claim If after that of ours at this courts. concern may proceed That time. I would reverse.
Bjornsen v. A. J. Company, Inc., appellee, Construction appellants. Sons, partnership, al.,
Whitmer et 50742. No. 801) (Reported 119 N.W.2d