Sterling Drug, Inc.

16 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”
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
Boys Markets v. Clerks Union
398 U.S. 235 (1970) Cited 856 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Norris–LaGuardia Act's anti-injunction provisions do not bar enforcement of arbitration agreements
Labor Board v. Katz
369 U.S. 736 (1962) Cited 710 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Acme Industrial Co.
385 U.S. 432 (1967) Cited 265 times 4 Legal Analyses
Approving "discovery-type standard"
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”
Procter Gamble Ind. U. v. Procter Gamble
312 F.2d 181 (2d Cir. 1962) Cited 136 times
Concluding that an agreement providing that arbitration may be called for "by either party hereto, the Employer and the Union . . . clearly indicates that only the union or the employer can demand arbitration"
Industrial Un. of Mar. Ship. W. v. N.L.R.B
320 F.2d 615 (3d Cir. 1963) Cited 63 times 4 Legal Analyses
Nos. 14052, 14102. Argued May 21, 1963. Decided July 30, 1963. M.H. Goldstein, Philadelphia, Pa. (Goldstein Barkan, Michael Brodie, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for petitioner, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO. John H. Morse, New York City (Frank Cummings, New York City, Cravath, Swaine Moore, New York City, on the brief), for Bethlehem Steel Co. (Shipbuilding Division). Nancy M. Sherman, Washington, D.C. (Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli
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. . . ."

Sterling Drug, Inc.

16 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 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 that the Norris–LaGuardia Act's anti-injunction provisions do not bar enforcement of arbitration agreements

Holding that "an employer's unilateral change in conditions of employment under negotiation" is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act because "it is a circumvention of the duty to negotiate"

Approving "discovery-type standard"

Concluding that an agreement providing that arbitration may be called for "by either party hereto, the Employer and the Union . . . clearly indicates that only the union or the employer can demand arbitration"

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. . . ."