Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local Union No. 7r v. Safeway Stores, Inc., and Sandra Cortez, Rule 19(a)(2)
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided November 17, 1989No. 87-2547Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcKAY, Circuit Judge
I dissent from the court’s conclusion in part III that the arbitrator’s award drew its essence from the party’s submission of issues to him. While I have no quarrel with the rest of the court’s opinion, I find it unnecessary to reach those points because I cannot agree that the arbitrator’s award draws its essence from the contract and the submission — the latter being necessary to the validity of the award. See United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1353, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960) (“A party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Courier-Citizen Company v. Boston Electrotypers Union No. 11, International Printing & Graphic Communications Union of North AmericaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1983
- Retail Store Employees Union Local 782 v. Sav-On GroceriesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1975
- Local 1837, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Maine Public Service Co.District Court, D. Maine · 1984