Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Admissibility Of Parol Evidence In Judicial Determinations Of Arbitrability, Michigan Law Review
Admissibility Of Parol Evidence In Judicial Determinations Of Arbitrability, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Whether parol evidence of bargaining history is admissible in a court's determination of arbitrability is a problem arising out of the United States Supreme Court's 1960 decisions in the Steelworkers Trilogy. The Court there emphasized the national labor policy favoring arbitration as the best means of resolving labor disputes. Citing its earlier Lincoln Mills decision interpreting section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, the Court stated that, in enacting section 301, Congress assigned the question of the jurisdiction of an arbitrator to the courts in the absence of an agreement by the parties specifically assigning the question to …
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 …
Labor Law - Arbitration - Restriction Of Judicial Intervention Into The Arbitration Process, James J. White
Labor Law - Arbitration - Restriction Of Judicial Intervention Into The Arbitration Process, James J. White
Michigan Law Review
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 …