Legal Opinion · Dissent

Luden's Inc. v. Local Union No. 6 of the Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers' International Union

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided July 20, 1994No. 92-1982Published

1DissentAlito, Circuit Judge

I would affirm the decision of the district court. For essentially the reasons explained by that court (see Luden’s Inc. v. Local Union No. 6, 805 F.Supp. 313, 323-27 (E.D.Pa.1992)), I would hold that the union’s grievance concerning the retroactivity of the proposed wage increase was not subject to the arbitration provision of the terminated 1988 collective bargaining agreement.

I would not reach the theory on which the court’s decision is based, i.e., that the parties, upon the termination of the 1988 agreement, entered into an implied-in-fact agreement containing an arbitration requirement…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Litton Financial Printing Div., Litton Business Systems, Inc. v. NLRBSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  3. Luden's, Inc. v. Local Union No. 6 of the Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers International UnionDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API