Glaziers Local 1162, Painters

12 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”
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”
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
Teamsters Local v. Lucas Flour Co.
369 U.S. 95 (1962) Cited 1,181 times
Holding that "under the mandate of Lincoln Mills " federal labor law is "paramount" when deciding issues raised under § 301
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.
388 U.S. 175 (1967) Cited 334 times
Holding that majority rule concept is at the center of federal labor policy
Mastro Plastics Corp. v. Labor Board
350 U.S. 270 (1956) Cited 403 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America
391 U.S. 418 (1968) Cited 215 times
Holding that union could not expel member because he filed unfair labor practice charge against it without first exhausting internal remedies as provided in union constitution
Scofield v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
394 U.S. 423 (1969) Cited 117 times 6 Legal Analyses
Upholding union rule, enforceable by fines and expulsion, imposing limitation on immediate pay that members could receive for piecework because Court found no "impairment of statutory labor policy"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. C & C Plywood Corp.
385 U.S. 421 (1967) Cited 117 times
Holding that the NLRB has the authority to interpret CBAs in the first instance where its interpretation is for the purpose of “enforc[ing] a statutory right which Congress considered necessary to allow labor and management to get on with the process of reaching fair terms and conditions of employment”
Labor Board v. Sands Mfg. Co.
306 U.S. 332 (1939) Cited 139 times
In N.L.R.B. v. Sands Mfg. Co., 306 U.S. 332, 59 S.Ct. 508, 83 L.Ed. 682, affirming the ruling of this Court in 6 Cir., 96 F.2d 721, the Supreme Court held the employer justified in abandoning further negotiations with the Union when conditions showed the uselessness of continuing with them.

Glaziers Local 1162, Painters

12 Cited authorities

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

Holding that "under the mandate of Lincoln Mills " federal labor law is "paramount" when deciding issues raised under § 301

Holding that majority rule concept is at the center of federal labor policy

Holding that collective-bargaining agreement "must be read as a whole and in light of the law relating to it when it was made"

Holding that union could not expel member because he filed unfair labor practice charge against it without first exhausting internal remedies as provided in union constitution

Upholding union rule, enforceable by fines and expulsion, imposing limitation on immediate pay that members could receive for piecework because Court found no "impairment of statutory labor policy"

In N.L.R.B. v. Sands Mfg. Co., 306 U.S. 332, 59 S.Ct. 508, 83 L.Ed. 682, affirming the ruling of this Court in 6 Cir., 96 F.2d 721, the Supreme Court held the employer justified in abandoning further negotiations with the Union when conditions showed the uselessness of continuing with them.