Macek v. Bethlehem Steel Co.

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Louis A. Macek, an employee of the Bethlehem Steel Company, filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County to recover back wages. As set out in the bill of particulars, the claim was that he should have been paid $1.69 per hour for the period from August 1, 1947 to July 18, 1948, instead of $1.53 per hour which he received, and that he should have been paid $1.86 per hour for the period from July 18, 1948 to August 1, 1950, instead of $1.72 per hour which he received. Prior to August 1947, Macek had received the pay of an “A Machinist”, but on August 4, 1947 his job was reclassified as “Locomotive Eepairman A”.

The suit challenges the validity of the reclassification under the union contracts. ' At the conclusion of the testimony the trial court granted a motion for directed verdict. The appeal is from the judgment entered on the verdict. The reclassification of jobs at the appellee’s plant was made pursuant to a directive of the National War Labor Board and a collective-bargaining agreement of April 11, 1947. After the reclassification of the appellant’s job his duties remained the same, but he was placed in a category receiving a lower rate of pay.

However, as provided by. the agreement, he was given a personal rate of pay in excess of that .fixed for a “Locomotive Eepairman A,” based upon his actual average earnings for ⁴³⁷ the first quarter of the year 1947, plus any wage increases. This adjustment was made retroactive, the rate working out at about $1.62 per hour. Thus, Macek suffered no diminution in wages as a result of the reclassification. His claim is that he has not received the top rate of an “A Machinist,” as now defined, during the periods mentioned.

It was stipulated that the difference amounted to $696.00. Serious questions were raised at the argument as to the right of the plaintiff to invoke the court’s aid in a wage dispute grounded on breach of a collective-bargaining agreement providing a specific remedy for grievances by hearing before a joint committee of representatives of the Union and the Company. Such a grievance was filed by Macek and withdrawn by his Union representatives after a hearing at which Macek was present. In effect, these representatives agreed that the reclassification was correct.

For present purposes we may assume, without deciding, that Macek was entitled to resort to the courts for relief. There is virtually no dispute as to the facts and we find no issue of fact in the case that would call for determination by a jury. It is undisputed that Macek performed the same duties before and after the reclassification. The only question is a legal one, whether the reclassification was permissible under a proper interpretation of the contracts.

The contract of April 11, 1947 between the Company and the United Steelworkers of America recites that it was entered into for the purpose of carrying into effect the Directive Order of the National War Labor Board dated November 25, 1944, for “Elimination of Wage Rate Inequities”. It provides that “existing jobs be described and classified” in accordance with an attached “Manual for Job Classification”. The third article of the agreement reads, in part, “Each job classification agreed to and signed by the Company and the Union on or prior to the date of this agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed. On and after April 28, 1947, * * * (b) when the classifications ⁴³⁸ of all the maintenance jobs in any department shall have been agreed to by the Company and the Union or determined as hereinafter set forth, the Company shall put such classifications into effect as of April 28, 1947. * * * On August 1, 1947, the Company shall put into effect as of April 28, 1947, each job classification which prior thereto shall have been agreed to by the Company and the Union and which shall not theretofore have been put into effect * * The fifth article, amending Article Y of an earlier agreement, provides