INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW, AFL-CIO), AND ITS UNIT LOCAL NO. 864, APPELLANTS,
v.
DANIEL RADIATOR CORPORATION OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

5th Cir. | 1964-03-02
No. 20435
328 F.2d 614 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1964) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the question of whether a grievance was settled is for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs sought specific performance of a collective bargaining agreement to arbitrate a discharge grievance. The defendant argued the grievance was…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a suit for specific performance of a collective bargaining agreement to arbitrate, brought under Sec. 301 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185.

Defendant-appellee successfully contended in the lower court that the discharge grievance in question was not arbitrable because of an alleged settlement during its processing.

Plaintiffs-appellants urge here, as they did below, that questions concerning compliance with the grievance procedure are exclusively for the arbitrator, and that there was no settlement of the grievance to the satisfaction of the contracting parties, certainly no evidence establishing this as a matter of law.

Citing the leading cases both from the Supreme Court and from this court, they insist that the district judge’s decision was wrong. We agree.

The authorities are quite well collected in the briefs. From a reading of them, it is evident that this is just another ease in which management and labor see the invoked statute, Sec. 301, differently, and management’s view is wrong.1

The Fifth Circuit has been responsive to the fashioning of Sec. 301 law by the Supreme Court.2

The decision of the court below was contrary to the uniform course of decisions not only in the Supreme Court but in this court.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

. United Steelworkers of America v. America Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403; United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409; United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U.S. 195, 82 S.Ct. 1328, 8 L.Ed.2d 440; Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U.S. 238, 82 S.Ct. 1318, 8 L.Ed.2d 462.

. Item Co. v. New Orleans Newspaper Guild, 5 Cir., 256 F. 2d 855; Mississippi Valley Electric Co. v. Local 130 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 5 Cir., 278 F. 2d 764; Lodge 12 Intern. Ass’n of Machinists v. Cameron Iron Works, Inc., 5 Cir., 257 F. 2d 467; Gulf Oil Corp. v. Intl. Union of Operating Engineers, 5 Cir., 279 F. 2d 533; Deaton Truck Line, Inc. v. Local 612, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 5 Cir., 314 F. 2d 418.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw