Supreme Court Trilogy Decisions in 1960

The Steelworkers’ Trilogy has significantly changed the way Arbitration is dealt with in America. The principles of law lifted from these cases served as the guidance and the primary basis in almost all of the decisions of the U.S. courts in arbitration cases that came into their attention for the succeeding years.
This study will present the principles of law in relation to arbitration that were lifted from these cases. Specifically, this study aims to know, discuss, and analyze 1) the nature of the collective bargaining agreement, 2) the grievances that must be subjected to arbitration, 3) the scope of authority and powers of the arbitrators, and 4) the role of the courts in arbitration cases.
1) The basis for determining who has the authority for grievance proceedings is the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which is the contract entered into between the management and a recognized bargaining union of a company.
2) Arbitration is a contractual issue. As such, the courts should not intervene if both parties voluntarily agreed under the CBA to authorize an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from different interpretations of the negotiated agreement.
3) Courts cannot look into the merits of the arbitration award. The courts’ judicial review is only limited to the question of whether the contract authorizes arbitration of the particular issue in dispute.
The resea4) If the agreement does not explicitly authorize arbitration or does not provide the forum for grievances, the courts should determine it.
Methodology and Scope
The researcher carefully read and thoroughly analyzed the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in these cases. He also researched and examined the opinions and findings of legal personalities and writers after these cases were decided. Aside from the trilogy cases, the researcher also made use of one additional case and six commentaries and/or researches, all were taken from reputable sources in the Internet.
Review of Related Literature
Rainseberger enumerated the common law treatment of voluntary remedies:
"Traditionally, in the United States, the courts have looked with disfavor at efforts of private citizens to use voluntary methods to resolve contractual disputes. Many states courts have seen arbitration of disputes as an undesirable alternative to litigation. It is often viewed as an effort to supplant to jurisdiction of the courts. Under the common law, arbitrating agreements were regarded as purely executory. In other words, an agreement to arbitrate a dispute could unilaterally revoke at any time prior to the issuance of a final award."
Gershenfeld stated that:
"From the 1930s to the 1950s, it was not uncommon for management to argue that an arbitrator’s task in disciplinary matters was limited to determining whether or not the incident of which the employee was accused had occurred. If it had, management claimed the arbitrator’s task was over, and the assigned penalty should be upheld. This view did not prevail in the following years."
In the case of Raceway Park v. Local 47 Service Employees International, the U.S. Court of Appeals (for Six Circuit), citing the International Association of Machinists v. Cuttler-Hammer (67 N.Y. S.2d 317), said: " Prior to 1960, states courts hesitated to enforce grievance arbitration provisions. Even where state courts were willing to enforce CBAs, they often did so

You Might Also Like