The opinion of the court was delivered by: Parsons, District Judge.
During that period of time between October 1, 1960, and
October 1, 1961, defendant and the plaintiff Union were
parties to a collective bargaining agreement covering the
wages, hours, and working conditions of Kimball's production
and maintenance employees. In August of 1961, Kimball decided
to discontinue its Melrose Park, Illinois, operation and to
transfer the same to French Lick-West Baden, Indiana. Pursuant
to this decision, Kimball began the process of discharging all
its employees at Melrose Park. The French Lick Plant began its
operation on October 9, 1961,
and on that date, nine days after the collective bargaining
agreement had "terminated", Kimball began hiring new employees
for its French Lick Plant, none of whom had been previously
employed at the Melrose Park Plant.
The pertinent provisions of the collective bargaining
agreement include the following:
"6. When re-employment occurs employees will be
called back to work in the order of their
"9. Employees who are not recalled within two (2)
years following a lay-off are deemed to have lost
their seniority standing."
Article VIII — Section 1:
"Any difference arising from the interpretation
or application of this agreement between the
parties hereto, which cannot be settled directly
by the parties concerned, will be referred to a
board of arbitrators. * * *"
"It is understood that this agreement shall
continue to be in full force and effect from 12
noon, October 1, 1960, to October 1, 1961. * * *"
Plaintiff's filed a complaint on September 14, 1962,
charging that defendant breached its collective bargaining
agreement by refusing to hire at Kimball's plant in French
Lick those employees laid off when Kimball's plant in Melrose
Park was closed down.
In Count I of the complaint, the Union alleges that
Kimball's refusal to hire and to grant vacation pay to certain
employees created arbitrable disputes under the collective
bargaining agreement and the Union demands that Kimball be
compelled to submit the alleged disputes to arbitration. In
Count II, the Union and the individual plaintiffs representing
a class seek to obtain vacation pay for former Melrose Park
employees and damages for wages allegedly lost because of
Kimball's refusal to rehire the former Melrose Park employees
at the French Lick Plant. And, in Count III, the Union seeks
damages for membership dues allegedly lost as a result of the
same refusal to rehire.
Insofar as Counts I and II seek vacation pay, the same have
been dismissed pursuant to a stipulation of the parties filed
on May 28, 1963. Consequently, all three counts are narrowed
to the claim that defendant breached the collective bargaining
agreement by failing to rehire the former Melrose Park
employees at the French Lick Plant.
Plaintiffs have filed, as to Count I, a motion for judgment
on the pleadings, which has been taken as a motion for summary
judgment, and defendant has filed a motion for summary
judgment as to all three counts.
It appearing that this Court has jurisdiction and that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact, the Court may thus
proceed to rule upon the respective motions and issues of law
thereby presented. The basic issue simply is whether or not
there is any arbitrable dispute or difference arising from ...