Mail-Well Envelope v. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, District 54
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
1DissentDavid A. Nelson, Circuit Judge
Although no collective-bargaining agreement was in effect when Parrish, Roginski and Stacho were discharged, and no obligation to arbitrate the discharges could have existed as of the time the discharges occurred, it was certainly within the power of the parties to enter into a new contract creating such an obligation retrospectively. The problem, as I see it, is that the parties never did so.
The new collective-bargaining agreement speaks as of July 13, 1988. It was executed on that date, according to Article XXV, and it expressly says that “[t]his agreement shall become effective the 13th…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Interstate Brands Corporation, Butternut Bread Division v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 135Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- Peerless Importers, Inc. v. Wine, Liquor & Distillery Workers Union Local One, John Schumacher, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc, Local 1123 Albert A. Deangelis v. The Timken CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.