AUTO, MARINE & SPECIALTY PAINTERS LOCAL NO. 1176, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
BAY AREA SEALERS, INC., RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
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.
The defense of abandonment of a collective bargaining agreement should be decided by an arbitrator, not the district court.
Appellant petitioned to compel arbitration of grievances under a collective bargaining agreement. Appellee argued the agreement was abandoned due to a…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Abandonment Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In response to appellant’s petition to compel arbitration of certain grievances, appel-lee stipulated to the initial existence of a collective bargaining agreement between the parties but asserted the agreement had been abandoned because appellant took no action to implement it for over a year despite appellee’s overtures. The district court agreed and dismissed the petition.' The appellant argues that the defense of abandonment should have been left to the arbitrator. We agree.
In Operating Engineers Local 150 v. Flair Builders, Inc., 406 U.S. 487, 92 S.Ct. 1710, 32 L,Ed.2d 248 (1971), the Supreme Court held that a district court erred in dismissing a petition to compel arbitration on the ground of laches. The Court held that a broad arbitration clause requiring the parties to arbitrate “any difference” included the defense of laches.
In this case the collective bargaining agreement provided without limitation for arbitration of any “complaint against the other party regarding a grievance which has not been amicably settled” or, more simply, “all disputes and grievances.” This language is sufficiently broad to include the defense of repudiation which, under the circumstances here, is equivalent to a defense of laches. See also H & M Box, Inc. v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers Local 45, 493 F. 2d 1226 (1st Cir. 1974).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rochdale Vill., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Emps. Union, 605 F.2d 1290 (2d Cir. 1979)
-
Wren v. Sletten Constr. Co., 654 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1981)
-
Rayner v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 665 F.2d 970 (9th Cir. 1982)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs, Local 150, AFL-CIO v. Flair Builders, Inc., 406 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1972)
- H & M Cake BOX, Inc. v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers Int'l Union OF Am., 493 F.2d 1226 (1st Cir. 1974)