Arbitrate or not?
The Supreme Court rendered an interesting decision in a case where an employer sued a local union for alleged violations of the no strike provisions of a collective bargaining agreement and an international union for tortious interference with the CBA. The local union claimed there was no violation of the CBA because it was not ratified as of the time of the alleged violation of the no strike clause. The 7 member majority opinion (Thomas) held the ratification date issue was one for a court to decide, rather than an arbitrator. A unanimous court refused to extend "federal common law" to include tortious interference with a contract as a claim cognizable under LMRA § 301. But the really interesting part is after the jump.
The majority opinion seems straight forward. The arbitration clause covered all disputes "arising under" the CBA. The Court's majority notes there is no CBA until ratification. The union asserted the ratification occurred after the actions complained of by the employer, and that as a result the no strike clause did not bar the strike. The Court's majority found the issue of whether ratification occurred was one of formation of the agreement, thus subject to judicial determination. The dissent (Sotomayor) persuasively notes that it is undisputed that the parties reached a binding agreement in December of 2004, which by its terms was made retroactive to the May 2004 expiration of the prior agreement. The dispute surely "arises under" the CBA. The employer consistently argued the case involved a formation dispute, and the union failed to raise its counter argument until its merits brief.
Indeed, by declining to consider the plain terms of the parties’ agreement, the majority offers little more than “an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 241 (1937). In view of the CBA’s effective date, I would hold that the parties agreed to arbitrate the no-strike dispute, including Local 287’s ratification-date defense, and I would affirm the judgment below on this alternative ground.
This entry was posted on at 3:02 PM and is filed under Arbitration, LMRA, no strike clause, tortious interference. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.
- No comments yet.
VIP Followers
Info recommended by:
Webpages of law
Popular entries
-
Several in-the-know readers have passed along an incendiary anonymous memo making the rounds among administrators and trustees regarding fin...
-
UPDATE: There is pending legislation for major changes to the alimony statute in Massachusetts. The Alimony Reform Act of 2011 was filed on...
-
500 Coke employees lost their health insurance the day after they went on strike. The union has sued under ERISA , claiming the action wa...
-
Two weeks ago, a Florida man was arrested for logging on to his Facebook account and requesting that his estranged wife list him as a "...
-
Medical marijuana legal in some states, is creating some employment law problems . Seems employees with prescriptions for medicinal use of ...
-
Today marks day 100 of the Mott's strike . The pro-union writer, Michael Winship, does a pretty good job of outlining the economics of ...
-
This business owner's letter to the editor makes a strong case for preservation of the secret ballot for determining a union's maj...
-
Here is another example (the leather goods industry) of the absolute collapse of domestic manufacturing causing the elimination of high pa...
-
Attorney Kelsey will be appearing on Money Matters with Scottie McCall on Friday, April 30, 2010 at 3:30 P.M. Attorney Kelsey will discuss...
-
Responding to a request from Congressman Darrell Issa (R. CA), David Berry, the Inspector General for the NLRB has determined Craig Becke...