Labor Law - Arbitration - Restriction of Judicial Intervention Into the Arbitration Process

White, James J.

Journal: Michigan Law Review

Volume: 59

First Page: 454

Year: 1961

Bluebook Citation: 59 MICH. L. REV. 454 (1961)

Author: James J. White: all 65 publications


Citation analytics

How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Cited
1
Citing decision
1
Courts citing
Most recently cited by1

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Abstract

Respondent company laid off a number of employees as a result of its decision to contract out maintenance work formerly done in the company shop. After the grievance procedure failed to resolve petitioner union's claim that this violated the contract provision against lockouts, and the company refused the union's request for arbitration, the union sought specific performance of the promise to arbitrate contained in the collective bargaining contract. In dismissing the plea, the district court found that contracting out work was solely a function of management and therefore not arbitrable because the contract specifically excluded from arbitration "matters which are strictly a function of management." The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed on the same ground. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, reversed, one Justice dissenting.

An order to arbitrate should not be denied unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause can not to be interpreted to cover the asserted dispute. United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960).

Chat with this journal article using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this journal article, verify citations, and research related authorities. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.