In re California Music Theatre Inc. and American Federation of Musicians Local 47
Labor Arbitration
94 Lab. Arb. (BNA) 92 (1989)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
California Music Theatre, Inc. (CMT) (defendant), a nonprofit theater company, entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with the American Federation of Musicians Local 47 (AFM) (plaintiff) to employ musicians for CMT’s productions. Because CMT primarily produced limited-run, limited-budget musicals based out of the local Pasadena Civic Auditorium (PCA), AFM agreed to certain accommodations because CMT was not a first-class producer. There was no strict definition for a first-class producer; however, community-level producers were never considered first class. Specifically, AFM allowed CMT to hire 18 musicians per production, instead of the 21 typically required for performances at the PCA, and AFM allowed CMT to pay those musicians at a lower rate. The agreement did not contemplate the possibility that CMT might put on a first-class production in the future, but it did state that AMT’s normal rules and regulations, including employment and wage regulations, applied to the extent those normal rules were not in conflict with the terms of the agreement. In 1988, CMT informed AFM that it planned to put on a first-class production of Strike Up the Band at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion (DCP), a large, premier venue in Los Angeles. The planned production would involve twice as many performances and more than double the budget of CMT’s usual productions. CMT did not dispute that it needed to pay musicians the full, typical rate required by the AFM for productions at the DCP. However, CMT requested a waiver of the AFM’s rule that a minimum of 31 musicians needed to be hired for productions at the DCP; CMT wanted to hire only 22. AFM refused the waiver. Regardless, CMT hired only 22 musicians for its performances at DCP. AFM filed a grievance, which was heard before a labor arbitrator.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Weiss, Arbitrator)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.