Columbus Printing Pressmen Union No. 252

42 Cited authorities

Steelworkers v. Warrior Gulf Co.
363 U.S. 574 (1960) Cited 5,612 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that grievance machinery “is at the very heart of the system of industrial self-government” and the courts should not deny an order to arbitrate “unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute”
Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.
415 U.S. 36 (1974) Cited 2,877 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that workers may bring Title VII discrimination claims in federal court notwithstanding an arbitration provision in a CBA
Steelworkers v. Enterprise Corp.
363 U.S. 593 (1960) Cited 3,893 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a reviewing court should not refuse to enforce an arbitral award merely because it would read the collective bargaining agreement differently than the arbitrator
Steelworkers v. Am. Mfg. Co.
363 U.S. 564 (1960) Cited 2,229 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that because the parties bargained for the “arbitrator's judgment,” the underlying “question of contract interpretation” is for the arbitrator, and the courts have “no business weighing the merits of the grievance”
John Wiley Sons v. Livingston
376 U.S. 543 (1964) Cited 1,771 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement survived a corporate merger and bound the resulting corporation
Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills
353 U.S. 448 (1957) Cited 2,323 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 301 expresses a federal policy in favor of the enforceability of labor contracts
Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge
403 U.S. 274 (1971) Cited 824 times
Holding wrongful discharge action brought in state court precluded by pervasiveness of federal regulation in the area
Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Glass
404 U.S. 157 (1971) Cited 630 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit
Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board
379 U.S. 203 (1964) Cited 731 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA
Carey v. Westinghouse Corp.
375 U.S. 261 (1964) Cited 365 times
Holding that Section 301 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a suit to enforce an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement even if the case is "truly a representation case" that could also be heard by the NLRB under Section 9 of the NLRA
Section 173 - Functions of Service
29 U.S.C. § 173 Cited 380 times
Providing that the "final adjustment by a method agreed upon by the parties is declared to be the desirable method for settlement of grievance disputes. . . ."

Columbus Printing Pressmen Union No. 252

42 Cited authorities

Holding that workers may bring Title VII discrimination claims in federal court notwithstanding an arbitration provision in a CBA

Holding that a reviewing court should not refuse to enforce an arbitral award merely because it would read the collective bargaining agreement differently than the arbitrator

Holding that because the parties bargained for the “arbitrator's judgment,” the underlying “question of contract interpretation” is for the arbitrator, and the courts have “no business weighing the merits of the grievance”

Holding that a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement survived a corporate merger and bound the resulting corporation

Holding that § 301 expresses a federal policy in favor of the enforceability of labor contracts

Holding wrongful discharge action brought in state court precluded by pervasiveness of federal regulation in the area

Holding retirees are not "employees" within the bargaining unit

Holding that the "contracting out" of work traditionally performed by bargaining unit employees is a mandatory subject of bargaining under the NLRA

Holding that Section 301 gives a federal court jurisdiction over a suit to enforce an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement even if the case is "truly a representation case" that could also be heard by the NLRB under Section 9 of the NLRA

Providing that the "final adjustment by a method agreed upon by the parties is declared to be the desirable method for settlement of grievance disputes. . . ."