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”
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
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”
476 U.S. 380 (1986) Cited 319 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that where "a state court . . . ha no subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue . . ., any judgment issued by the state court will be void ab initio"
Holding that marijuana is a "resource" and that the defendant "obtained" constructive possession of a "substantial" amount of this resource when he arranged for the transportation of 4,800 pounds of marijuana from South Carolina to New York City
In Pittsburgh Glass, the Court held that it was not a denial of due process for the Board to refuse to consider evidence relating to the certification issue when petitioner first sought to introduce such evidence at the unfair labor practice hearing.
Holding ERISA plaintiff could not rely on equitable estoppel to circumvent limitations defense where he engaged in negotiations with defendant to resolve claim yet defendant did not induce him to defer litigation; plaintiff had been "an unsuccessful supplicant throughout, and multiple unrequited demands do not provide additional time to start a suit."
29 U.S.C. § 160 Cited 7,059 times 23 Legal Analyses
Finding that the procedures for unfair labor practice cases mandated by R.C. 4117.12 and 4117.13 are substantively identical to those established in NLRA to govern unfair labor practice cases before NLRB