Legal Opinion · Dissent

Edward Hines Lumber Company of Oregon v. Lumber and Sawmill Workers Local No. 2588 and Central Oregon District Council, Lpiw

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided June 25, 1985No. 84-3503Published

1DissentKilkenny, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes that the district court improperly substituted its own judgment for that of the arbitrator in vacating the arbitrator’s award in favor of the Union. I disagree, for the reason that the majority’s disposition misses what I perceive to be the critical question presented by this appeal: When management’s decision to subcontract work does not violate the express terms of a collective bargaining agreement and causes no unemployment among bargaining unit workers, should an arbitration award based upon a disregarding of these facts be upheld? I submit…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. George Day Construction Co., Inc. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 354Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
  2. Clinchfield Coal Company v. District 28, United Mine Workers of America & Local Union 1452, Westmoreland Coal Company, Amicus CuriaeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1983
  3. Pacific Motor Trucking Co., Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant-Appellee v. Automotive MacHinists Union, Defendant-Cross-Complainant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
  4. Broadway Cab Cooperative, Inc. v. Teamsters & Chauffeurs Local Union No. 281, IbtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
  5. Clinchfield Coal Co. v. District 28, United Mine WorkersCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API