Legal Opinion · Dissent

Smith v. City of Oklahoma City

Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma

Decided February 15, 2013No. 108,206Published

1DissentMitchell, J.

19 Because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear Smith's claim for wrongful termination, I respectfully dissent. The central issue in this case is whether Section 8.3 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) entered into between the *927City (Employer) and the Plaintiff's representative Union provides the exclusive procedure for settling employee grievances covered by that agreement. I believe that it does.

1 20 Section 8.3 provides:

Controversy between the Employer and the Bargaining Agent or any other employee concerning the interpretation, enforcement or application…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
  2. United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
  3. Vaca v. SipesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
  5. Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976

8 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