§

Exxon Chemical Co.

340 N.L.R.B. 357 (N.L.R.B. 2003)
Exxon Chemical Co.

11 Cited authorities

  1. AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc'ns Workers of Am.

    475 U.S. 643 (1986)   Cited 5,497 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was for the court to decide whether a particular labor dispute fell within the arbitration clause of a collective-bargaining agreement

  2. 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”

  3. 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”

  4. 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

  5. Nolde Bros., Inc. v. Bakery Workers

    430 U.S. 243 (1977)   Cited 531 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an arbitration clause survived the expiration of the CBA, even though the agreement was silent as to survival

  6. Blohm & Voss AG v. Prudential-Grace Lines, Inc.

    419 U.S. 840 (1974)   Cited 51 times

    No. 73-1893. October 15, 1974, OCTOBER TERM, 1974. C.A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 489 F. 2d 231.

  7. Lukens Steel v. United Steelworkers of America

    989 F.2d 668 (3d Cir. 1993)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that an arbitration provision was broad where it called for arbitration "[s]hould any differences arise as to the meaning and application of, or compliance with, the provisions of this Agreement" and further noting that the parties' express exclusion of other categories of subject matter from the arbitration clause indicated that the parties knew how to limit the categories of arbitrable subject matter

  8. E.M. Diagnostic v. Local 169

    812 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1987)   Cited 60 times
    Holding that arbitration clause was broad where it called for arbitration of “any dispute arising out of a claimed violation of this Agreement”

  9. Local 719, Am. Bakery v. Natl. Biscuit

    378 F.2d 918 (3d Cir. 1967)   Cited 47 times
    Declining invitation to analogize to procedures of Arbitration Act

  10. Leach Corp. v. N.L.R.B

    54 F.3d 802 (D.C. Cir. 1995)   Cited 4 times

    No. 93-1707. Argued March 24, 1995. Decided May 12, 1995. On Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board. William H. Emer, Los Angeles, CA, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Kelly F. Watson, Los Angeles, CA. Robert J. Englehart, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, DC, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Linda R. Sher, Acting Associate General Counsel, Aileen A. Armstrong, Deputy Associate General