Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Local Union No. 11, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Jandon Electric Co.

Loc. Union No. 11, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Jandon Elec. Co., 429 F.2d 584 (9th Cir. 1970)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1970-06-25
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Local 11 appeals from judgments overturning a number of arbitration awards originally rendered in its favor. The trial court found that the appellee-contractors had not bound themselves to the Inside Wireman’s Agreement which authorized the arbitration proceedings. We affirm. In large part Local 11 requests a redetermination of the facts of the ease. Our review of the record convinces us of the correctness of the trial court’s findings and conclusions.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Local Union No. 11, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Jandon Electric Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
LOCAL UN. NO. 11, v. JANDON ELEC.,429 F.2d 584(9th Cir. 1970)
LOCAL UNION NO. 11, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
Appellant, v. JANDON ELECTRIC COMPANY, Inc., Appellee. Martin S. PETERSON
et al., Appellees, v. LOCAL UNION NO. 11, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, Appellant.
Nos. 23554, 23555.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 25, 1970.
Page 585
Albert Brundage (argued), Julius Reich, of Brundage Hackler, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

David Maddux (argued), of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter Hampton, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, CARTER and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Local 11 appeals from judgments overturning a number of arbitration awards originally rendered in its favor. The trial court found that the appellee-contractors had not bound themselves to the Inside Wireman's Agreement which authorized the arbitration proceedings. We affirm.

In large part Local 11 requests a redetermination of the facts of the case. Our review of the record convinces us of the correctness of the trial court's findings and conclusions. They certainly are not clearly erroneous. Nor did the trial court err in excluding parol evidence as to the meaning of the significant documents in the case. Even if an examination beyond the four corners of the documents was authorized on the grounds of ambiguity, there has been no showing that the contractors involved in this case had any knowledge of the customs and practices of the primary negotiating parties.

The judgments are affirmed.