Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Is Arbitration Final & (And) Binding - Public Policy Says, Not Necessarily - Exxon Shipping Company V. Exxon Seamen's Union, Todd M. Siegel
Is Arbitration Final & (And) Binding - Public Policy Says, Not Necessarily - Exxon Shipping Company V. Exxon Seamen's Union, Todd M. Siegel
Journal of Dispute Resolution
In the realm of employment law, management and labor unions enter in collective bargaining agreements to establish employment terms including wages, hours, benefits and grievance procedures.' A typical grievance procedure provides that labor disputes will be resolved through arbitration. Courts are encouraged to defer to collective bargaining agreements. When disputes arise, employees and employers attempt to resolve matters themselves, and if this fails, labor unions intervene and submit grievances to arbitration. Generally, an arbitrator's decision is final and binding, but in limited circumstances the matter is ultimately litigated. One such limited circumstance arose when the courts developed a public policy …
Recent Developments: The Uniform Arbitration Act, Kimberly Gibbens, Cathleen A. Martin, Peter Sumners, Stephen Witte
Recent Developments: The Uniform Arbitration Act, Kimberly Gibbens, Cathleen A. Martin, Peter Sumners, Stephen Witte
Journal of Dispute Resolution
The Uniform Arbitration Act is an annual project of the Journal of Dispute Resolution.2 The project examines court opinions from the past year which have interpreted state versions of the Uniform Arbitration Act ("U.A.A.").' Currently, thirty-four states and the District of Columbia have adopted arbitration statutes based on the U.A.A.' The goal of the Journal of Dispute Resolution in creating this project is to promote uniformity in interpretation of the U.A.A. by describing the decisions and rationales of recent court opinions.
Enforcing Arbitration With A Nonsignatory: Equitable Estoppel And Defense Piercing Of The Corporate Veil - Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. V. Sunkist Growers, Inc., Scott M. Mckinnis
Enforcing Arbitration With A Nonsignatory: Equitable Estoppel And Defense Piercing Of The Corporate Veil - Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc. V. Sunkist Growers, Inc., Scott M. Mckinnis
Journal of Dispute Resolution
Since Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act,2 courts have liberally enforced a strong national policy favoring arbitration of commercial disputes In furtherance of this goal, courts have refused to stay arbitration proceedings simply because they may involve parties who are nonsignatories to an arbitration agreement.4 Courts have accomplished this objective through the doctrine of equitable estoppel; Sunkist exemplifies that trend. However, Sunkist also represents a corporate scenario in which the emerging legal theory of "defensive piercing"' could be established as another avenue from which to compel commercial arbitration.