Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Labor Law-Arbitration And Award-Judicial Review Of Labor Arbitration Awards Which Rely On The Practices Of The Parties, Michigan Law Review
Labor Law-Arbitration And Award-Judicial Review Of Labor Arbitration Awards Which Rely On The Practices Of The Parties, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Modem collective bargaining agreements typically provide for private arbitration as the means of resolving disputes between employees and management over the interpretation and application of the agreement. In the event the arbitrator's decision is challenged in court by the adversely-affected party, the question of how much judicial deference should be given to the private ruling becomes of some importance. The Supreme Court has set out guidelines which purport to define the proper role of courts in such disputes-that role being for the most part one of judicial deference to arbitrator's decisions. Nevertheless, the appropriate scope of judicial review remains unclear. …
The Supreme Court And Labor Dispute Arbitration: The Emerging Federal Law, Russell A. Smith, Dallas L. Jones
The Supreme Court And Labor Dispute Arbitration: The Emerging Federal Law, Russell A. Smith, Dallas L. Jones
Michigan Law Review
Within the past few years, the United States Supreme Court has handed down a number of decisions of great significance to the labor dispute arbitration process. Some have been concerned with problems of arbitrability or arbitral authority; others with the availability and exclusivity of the arbitration process vis-a-vis alternative legal remedies for breach of the labor agreement; and still others with the effect of a breach of obligation by one party to the labor agreement upon the obligations of the other party. We propose in this article to analyze these decisions, to attempt to categorize the different kinds of challenges …
Labor Law-Collective Bargaining Agreements-Sham Exception To The Parol Evidence Rule In Welfare Trust Fund Agreement, John M. Price
Labor Law-Collective Bargaining Agreements-Sham Exception To The Parol Evidence Rule In Welfare Trust Fund Agreement, John M. Price
Michigan Law Review
Defendant, shortly after commencing a small-scale strip-mining operation, signed a standard United Mine Workers collective bargaining agreement. He claimed that before signing he informed the union representative that he could not pay the union wage scale, or the specified royalty payments to the plaintiffs, trustees of the union welfare and retirement fund, and that he signed only after being assured that the agreement was a mere formality. Defendant did not pay union wages, and sent monthly checks to the plaintiffs only in amounts he felt he could afford. Plaintiffs brought suit on the written agreement for payment of the royalties …
Some Problems Of Evidence Before The Labor Arbitrator, R. W. Fleming
Some Problems Of Evidence Before The Labor Arbitrator, R. W. Fleming
Michigan Law Review
Legal rules of evidence do not, of course, apply before the labor arbitrator. This is not surprising since such rules were developed in connection with jury trials, and do not apply strictly in any tribunal but a jury-court. The whole theory of the arbitration tribunal is that it is composed of experts who repeatedly inquire into a relatively homogeneous kind of cases. Exclusionary rules are hardly required as a precautionary measure. Indeed, as the late Harry Shulman said in his classic Oliver Wendell Holmes lecture at Harvard in 1955, "The more serious danger is not that the arbitrator will hear …
No-Strike Clauses In The Federal Courts, Frank H. Stewart
No-Strike Clauses In The Federal Courts, Frank H. Stewart
Michigan Law Review
One consideration will support several promises. A promisor may extract more than one promise in return for his single undertaking to do - or not to do. It depends upon his bargaining power. His single undertaking may be so valuable that several promises are necessary to induce him to act, or not to act. He is privileged to hold out for the best deal. The law does not examine his motives or reduce his demands. And from this arises the common- law principle that one consideration may support several promises.