Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SWIFT INDEP. PACKING CO. v. DISTRICT UNION LOCAL O

November 2, 1983

SWIFT INDEPENDENT PACKING COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
DISTRICT UNION LOCAL ONE, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, C.L.C., Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: MINER

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

MINER, District Judge.

 I.

 The present action involves a disputed labor arbitration award entered against plaintiff, Swift Independent Packing Company. Plaintiff here seeks to vacate the adverse arbitration award, 9 U.S.C. § 10, *fn1" while defendant, District Union Local One, has moved, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9, *fn2" to confirm the award. Jurisdiction is predicated upon § 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Before this Court is plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a), vacating the award, as well as defendant's motion to confirm the award, 9 U.S.C. § 9, and to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

 II

 Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois. Defendant is a labor organization representing some of plaintiff's employees in collective bargaining negotiations with plaintiff. The arbitration award at issue here grows out of an interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement entered into between the parties.

 In March of 1982, plaintiff and defendant entered into a collective bargaining agreement ("1982 agreement") covering the wages, hours and conditions of employment of certain employees located at plaintiff's Syracuse sales unit. This agreement was composed of two separate documents -- a 1979 collective bargaining agreement between the parties, and a Memorandum of Understanding, which effectively amended the earlier collective bargaining agreement. Taken together, these two documents comprise the 1982 agreement.

 The following provisions of the agreements all are relevant to the present dispute. Article XI, PA of the 1982 agreement provides:

 The basic work week will be forty (40) hours. The basic work day will be eight (8) hours. If, in the opinion of the Company, it becomes necessary for employees to work longer than eight (8) hours in one (1) day or forty (40) hours in one (1) week, the employees shall do so to the extent permitted by the applicable New York State Laws.

 Article XI, PB of the 1979 collective bargaining agreement provided that:

 One and one-half (1 1/2) times the regular rate of pay shall be paid for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in any work week.

 OR

 One and one-half (1 1/2) times the regular rate of pay shall be paid for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours in any one (1) day.

 After determining separately the total compensation accruable under this Paragraph B, the greater amount ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.