| Free Trial / Sign Up | Products / Prices / Samples | About Us / Contact | FAQs | Home |
|
Latest employment law cases Summaries and links to full text |
|
Emailed directly to you and online all the time |
| Latest Cases | Advanced Search | Law Firm Directory | Arbitrator Directory | Law School Directory | Legal Resources / Memos |
| Employment Law Memo |
| Arbitration Law Memo |
| NLRB Law Memo |
| Employment Law Blog |
| Arbitration Law Blog |
| Employment Law 101 |
| Articles |
| Supreme Court Cases |
| EEOC Info |
| NLRB Info |
|
United States Supreme Court Employment Law Cases All pending employment law cases - click here |
Granite Rock Company
v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
(08-1214)
LMRA Section 301 suit: tortious
interference and duty to arbitrate
|
The employer sued a local union and an international
union under Labor Management Relations Act Section 301(a) claiming that (1) the
international union tortiously interfered with a collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) between the employer and the local union, and (2) the local union breached
the CBA by going on strike. The employer and the local union had reached a
tentative new CBA which contained a broad arbitration clause and a no-strike
clause. The employer alleged that the local union had ratified the CBA and then
engaged in a strike which was in part led by a high official of the
international union.
(1) The 9th Circuit held that the
employer failed to state a claim against the international union because the
tortious interference claim did not "arise under" the CBA between the
employer and the local. The court
reasoned that because the international "has no rights or duties under the
agreement … [the employer’s] tortious interference claim … does not meet
the requirements of section 301(a)." (2) As to the contract claim, the
parties disagreed on the date of ratification. The district court held that
issues of breach and damages had to be arbitrated, but that the issue of
contract ratification was for the court to decide. The 9th Circuit held that the
entire dispute should go to arbitration under the contract's arbitration clause,
which covered "all disputes arising under this agreement." The court
held that both parties consented to arbitration; the employer by suing under the
contract, and the union by moving to compel arbitration. The US Supreme Court granted certiorari
to review the 9th Circuit's judgment.
Case below: Granite
Rock Company v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 546
F.3d 1169
(9th
Cir 10/22/2008)
Question presented:
1. Does
a federal court have jurisdiction to determine whether a collective bargaining
agreement was formed when it is disputed whether any binding contract exists,
but no party makes an independent challenge to the arbitration clause apart
from claiming it is inoperative before the contract is established?
Certiorari Documents:
Briefs on the merits:
Counsel:
|
EEOC | NLRB | Supreme Court | Employment Law Blog | Arbitration Blog | Employment Law 101