wages, so-called fringe benefits, grievance procedure, and the like. It is not necessary for the purposes of this motion to determine definitively whether the change involved in this case is covered by this sentence. The doubt, however, does affect the question whether a preliminary injunction should be granted in the exercise of discretion. The final decision on this question should be left to the trial.
There is some support, I might say, for the position of the defendant that this is not a regulation that beneficially affects the employees, in addition to the mere and obvious meaning of the word, and this support is found in another provision of the contract. Article 20, Section 1, of the same contract provides that:
'The hours of work for maintenance employees shall be 40 hours a week, to consist of five consecutive days per week, said days to be eight consecutive hours each, excluding a lunch period not to exceed on hour.'
Section 8 of the same article provides:
'The scheduled hours of employees shall not be changed without at least 24 hours prior notice for the first change in any 30-day period and not less than 48 hours notice for any additional change.'
Obviously this provision contemplates that the employer may change the scheduled hours of employees at any time, but requires it to give 24 hours' notice in some instances and 48 hours' notice in some others. The necessary inference would seem to be that such changes are not within the provisions of Article 3, Section 1, which require either mutual consent of the employer and the union, or arbitration.
The Court is not unmindful of the fact that a change like this may cause some temporary hardship to individual employees and their families because they may have to make rearrangements of their daily routine, but this is one of those matters that frequently occurs in the daily life of a large community. In determining an application for a preliminary injunction, the Court must be guided and governed by equitable principles. If the case for the plaintiff is clear there is a valid basis for an injunction. Where it is doubtful whether ultimately the plaintiff is likely to prevail, there is less basis for an injunction.
In view of these circumstances and in view of the grave doubts of the Court whether Article 3, Section 1, applies to this situation the Court will deny the motion for a preliminary injunction.
It should be observed that arbitration procedure is provided by the agreement and it is open to the union to ask for arbitration. The motion is denied.
Counsel may submit an appropriate order.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.