Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

United States of America U.S.A. 9

United States of America U.S.A. 9 HEADNOTES Facts After the petitioner employer's "office clerical-tech- nial" (O&T) employees went on strike and picketed petitioner's plants during negotiations for a collec- tive-bargaining contract, the petitioner's production and maintenance (P&M) employees, represented by the respondent unions, honoured the O&T picket lines and stopped work in support of the sister unions representing the O&T employees. The peti- tioner then filed suit against the respondents under Section 301(a) of the Labour Management Rela- tions Act, claiming that the P&M employees' work stoppage violated the no-strike clause in the col- lective-bargaining contracts between the petitioner and the respondents, and that the question whether such work stoppage violated the no-strike clause was arbitrable under the grievance and arbitration pro- visions of the contracts for settling disputes over the interpretation and application of each contract. The petitioner sought damages, injunctive relief and an order directing the respondents to arbitrate such question. The District Court, concluding that the work stoppage was the result of P&M em- ployees' engaging in a sympathy strike in support of the striking O&T employees, held that it was pro- hibited from issuing an injunction because the P&M employees' strike was not an "arbitrable grievance" and hence was not http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Labour Law Reports Online Brill

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/united-states-of-america-u-s-a-9-8x0JI0BjD8

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
eISSN
2211-6028
DOI
10.1163/221160276X00661
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

HEADNOTES Facts After the petitioner employer's "office clerical-tech- nial" (O&T) employees went on strike and picketed petitioner's plants during negotiations for a collec- tive-bargaining contract, the petitioner's production and maintenance (P&M) employees, represented by the respondent unions, honoured the O&T picket lines and stopped work in support of the sister unions representing the O&T employees. The peti- tioner then filed suit against the respondents under Section 301(a) of the Labour Management Rela- tions Act, claiming that the P&M employees' work stoppage violated the no-strike clause in the col- lective-bargaining contracts between the petitioner and the respondents, and that the question whether such work stoppage violated the no-strike clause was arbitrable under the grievance and arbitration pro- visions of the contracts for settling disputes over the interpretation and application of each contract. The petitioner sought damages, injunctive relief and an order directing the respondents to arbitrate such question. The District Court, concluding that the work stoppage was the result of P&M em- ployees' engaging in a sympathy strike in support of the striking O&T employees, held that it was pro- hibited from issuing an injunction because the P&M employees' strike was not an "arbitrable grievance" and hence was not

Journal

International Labour Law Reports OnlineBrill

Published: Jan 1, 1975

There are no references for this article.