Legal Opinion · Dissent

E.M. Diagnostic Systems, Inc. v. Local 169, International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided February 13, 1987No. 86-5331Published

1DissentGarth, Circuit Judge

I cannot agree with the majority that the Company agreed to arbitrate its right to subcontract work. Not only does the Collective Bargaining Agreement state otherwise, but the parties’ bargaining history giving rise to the negotiated Agreement of the parties of April 12, 1985, demonstrates that the Company at no time consented to arbitrate its absolute right to subcontract, a right granted by the Agreement.

*98Not only has the majority redrawn the parties’ Agreement, but, moreover, because the arbitration clause here requires as a threshold condition that arbitration be restricted to “any dispute…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
  2. At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Nolde Bros., Inc. v. Local No. 358, Bakery & Confectionery Workers UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. Jones Dairy Farm v. Local No. P-1236, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Afl-CioCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1985
  5. Independent Petroleum Workers of America, Inc. v. American Oil CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1964

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API