The Supreme Court Decisions in the Trilogy Cases of 1960 - Case Study Example

The Supreme Court Decisions in the Trilogy Cases of 1960 Introduction This study has reference to the three cases decided by the United s Supreme Court (hereunto referred as "the Court) all on the same day of June 20, 1960. These cases are: The United Steelworkers of America v. American Manufacturing Co. (363 U.S. 564), The United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp. (363 U.S. 593), and The United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior Gulf Co. (363 U.S. 574). Since these three cases involved the United Steelworkers of America, a duly recognized bargaining union at that time, these cases are collectively known as the"Steelworkers' Trilogy". The Steelworkers' Trilogy has significantly changed the way Arbitration is dealt with in America. The principles of law lifted from these cases served as the guidance and the primary basis in almost all of the decisions of the U.S. courts in arbitration cases that came into their attention for the succeeding years. This study will present the principles of law in relation to arbitration that were lifted from these cases. Specifically, this study aims to know, discuss, and analyze 1) the nature of the collective bargaining agreement, 2) the grievances that must be subjected to arbitration, 3) the scope of authority and powers of the arbitrators, and 4) the role of the courts in arbitration cases. Hypotheses 1) The basis for determining who has the authority for grievance proceedings is the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which is the contract entered into between the management and a recognized bargaining union of a company. 2) Arbitration is a contractual issue. As such, the courts should not intervene if both parties voluntarily agreed under the CBA to authorize an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from different interpretations of the negotiated agreement. 3) Courts cannot look into the merits of the arbitration award. The courts' judicial review is only limited to the question of whether the contract authorizes arbitration of the particular issue in dispute. 4) If the agreement does not explicitly authorize arbitration or does not provide the forum for grievances, the courts should determine it. Methodology and Scope The researcher carefully read and thoroughly analyzed the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in these cases. He also researched and examined the opinions and findings of legal personalities and writers after these cases were decided. Aside from the trilogy cases, the researcher also made use of one additional case and six commentaries and/or researches, all were taken from reputable sources in the Internet. Review of Related Literature Rainseberger enumerated the common law treatment of voluntary remedies: "Traditionally, in the United States, the courts have looked with disfavor at efforts of private citizens to use voluntary methods to resolve contractual disputes. Many states courts have seen arbitration of disputes as an undesirable alternative to litigation. It is often viewed as an effort to supplant to jurisdiction of the courts. Under the common law, arbitrating agreements were regarded as purely executory. In other words, an agreement to arbitrate a dispute could unilaterally revoke at any time prior to the issuance of a final award." Gershenfeld stated that: "From the 1930s to the 1950s, it was not uncommon for management to argue that an arbitrator's task in disciplinary matters was limited to determining whether or not the incident of which the employee was accused had occurred. If it had, management claimed the arbitrator's task was over, and the assigned penalty should be upheld. This view did not prevail in the following years." In the case of Raceway Park v. Local 47 Service Employees International, the U.S. Court of Appeals (for Six Circuit), citing the International Association of Machinists v. Cuttler-Hammer (67 N.Y. S.2d 317), said: " Prior to 1960, states courts hesitated to enforce grievance arbitration provisions. Even where state courts were willing to enforce CBAs, they often did so reluctantly." The Supreme Court Trilogy Cases of 1960. The first case in the trilogy was the American Manufacturing decision. This involved an employee who left his work after he was injured. He then settled his claim for monetary payment with the employer for permanent partial disability. Two weeks after the settlement of the claim, the employee sought to return to work. The employer refused to reinstate the employee after a doctor determined that he was 25% partially but permanently disable. The Union filed a grievance under the seniority clause of the contract that serve to protect long term employees of the company. The employer refused to settle through arbitration to which the lower court favored saying that the union's claim is untenable since the seniority clause is inapplicable to the dispute. "The Supreme Court ruled that the (court) 'have no business in weighing the merits of the grievance in deciding whether arbitration is required. The Court reasoned that, where the union's claim 'on its face was governed by the contract,' it matters not if the union is right or wrong on the merits since this 'is a question of contract interpretation for the arbitrator." (IUS Labor, p. 1, quoting American Manufacturing, 363 U.S. at 567-568). The second case in this trilogy was the Warrior and Gulf Decision. Respondent Warrior and Gulf Company Navigation Company is engaged in the transportation of steel and steel products by a barge. When the Respondent reduced its working force, it also went contracting out maintenance work previously done by the laid-off workers. Many of the laid-off workers were actually hired but with lower wages by the companies to which Respondent had contracted its work. The Respondent refused to arbitrate, claiming that their decision to subcontract was "strictly a function of the management", which meant, "the dispute was not subject to arbitration" (Rainsberger). In addition, not only was there a long practice of subcontracting maintenance work on the barges of the company, but the contract did not contain restriction on subcontracting. The lower court dismissed the suit for arbitration of the grievance filed by the Steelworker's Union, saying that the decision to subcontract is a management function and there was no provision in the agreement that subcontracting is subject to arbitration. The real issue in this however, was the absence of a provision in the agreement if whether or not decisions that are strictly management functions can be subjected to arbitration. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, stating that it is the function of the trial courts to decide whether a grievance can be subjected for arbitration in the absence of an agreement in the contract. Since in this case, there is no provision which states whether or not decisions that are strictly of management functions can be subjected to arbitration, the lower should have determined. In its decision, the Supreme Court favored arbitration of the issues. The Court used the "positive assurance test" (IUS Labor, p.3), which means that "an order to arbitrate the particular grievance should not be denied unless it may be said that positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted disputes. Doubts should be resolved in favor of coverage (to arbitration)" (Warrior and Gulf Co., 363 U.S. at 582-583). "The court warned that if the contract language excluding matters that are 'strictly a function of management', then the 'arbitration clause would be swallowed up by the exception" (IUS Labor, p. 4, quoting Warrior and Gulf, 363 U.S. at 584-585) The last case in this trilogy is the Enterprise Wheel decision. In this case, 11 workers were fired after they staged a strike in sympathy with their co-employee who was previously fired. The labor contract provided provisions prohibiting strikes during the effectivity of the agreement, and arbitration of disputes over contract differences, which included that dismissal of the employees. The Steelworkers' Union filed an arbitration suit in a district court after the employer refused to submit the grievance to arbitration. The district court compelled arbitration, and the arbitrator decided in favor of the employees, ordering the employer to reinstate the strikers and order the payment of a specified back pay. However, the employer refused to comply with the award of the arbitrator. In the appeal, the appellate court reversed the decision of the arbitrator saying that the arbitrator was too imprecise in awarding the back pay and he has no authority to order payment of back pay after the expiration of the CBA. In disagreement with the decision of the appellate court, the Supreme Court reiterated that the role of courts in arbitration cases is very limited. In reviewing an arbitrator's award, the court should refuse to review the merits of the case, as it would impair federal labor policy favoring arbitration to settle disputes. In the court's view, the arbitrators are in the best position to devise remedies or appropriate guidelines to meet the situations of their work of settling labor disputes. Analysis The Steelworkers' Trilogy provided significant changes on how arbitration is dealt in the United States of America by providing guidelines or standards that are now used by the federal courts in deciding arbitration cases that come to their attention. This section will provide those standards and it will be discussed by answering the following questions lifted from the hypothesis: 1) What is the nature of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and its provisions 2) What are the factors to determine if a grievance arising from the CBA is under the jurisdiction of an arbitrator or of a court 3) What are the powers of an arbitrator in arbitration cases 4) Is the duty to arbitrate expires with the CBA 5) What is the extent of the courts' judicial review in arbitration cases The Collective Bargaining Agreement is a contract entered into between the employer and the employees' recognized bargaining unit. The parties are free to stipulate agreements in the CBA and the state is restricted from questioning the contents of this contract as long as it will meet the requisites of a valid contract, in respect to constitutionally established right to contract. Arbitration is a favorable medium in settling disputes arising from violations of the CBA. As declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Warrior and Gulf Co., "arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit any dispute which he has not agreed to submit" (363 U.S. at 578). This means that only grievances that are specified under the arbitration clause of the CBA can be settled by an arbitrator. In the absence of the stipulation of arbitrability under the arbitration clause, however, it is the duty of the courts to decide on the question. In case of doubts, or in the absence of strong evidence of a purpose to exclude a claim from arbitration, it should be decided in favor of arbitrability. The courts in these cases were also given limits in judicial review of arbitration cases. In the American Manufacturing and Enterprise Wheel decisions, the courts are only limited in determining whether the CBA authorizes arbitration of a particular issue in dispute. They are prohibited from reviewing the merits of the case and the award by the arbitrator. It is within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide on the procedural issues concerning arbitration as well as the merits of arguments of either party. However, the power of an arbitrator is not without limits. In Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp., the Supreme Court held that: "An arbitrator is confined to interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement. He does not sit to dispense his own brand of industrial justice. He may of course look for guidance from many sources, yet his award is legitimate only so long as it draws its essence from the CBA. When the arbitrator's words manifest an infidelity to his obligation, courts have no choice but to refuse enforcement of the award." (Vercruysse) Conclusions Arbitration is really an important part in the administration of labor dispute in the United States. This do not only relieve the courts from the clogging of cases, but also lessen the burden of the parties involved in spending huge amount of fortune and time in going to courts. However, the success of cases brought to arbitration will largely depend on the qualities of the arbitrator. Since arbitrators need not be lawyers, I recommend that there should be a set of qualification standards for them to be able to handle arbitration cases. For example, a would-be arbitrator should have undergone trainings is their field of specialization. An arbitrator should be assigned to hear specific cases only for example, discrimination cases or dismissal cases because an arbitrator may be good on one case but not on others. Furthermore, there should be a uniform procedure in hearing to satisfy the Constitutional requirements of substantive and procedural due process of law. On the other hand, courts' judicial review should not only be limited to determining whether or not the violation of the CBA falls under the jurisdiction of an arbitrator. It should be given the opportunity to review merits of the case only to answer if ever there serious question of laws or of facts, to correct erroneous application of the laws, and to look if there are abuses committed by arbitrators. As such, the credibility of decisions of arbitrators will be less tainted with impropriety and abuses, as arbitrators will fear being reprimanded by the courts. The application of these cases, however, is not always a one-side victory as there are questions that need to be clarified. Some of these questions are: 1) Should labor arbitrators decide issues concerning civil rights claims brought under a CBA arbitration clause as in discrimination in the workplace 2) When will the right to appeal set-in in arbitration cases Works Cited "A Further Exploration of the 2006 Amendment of the PERC Law: The Meaning of A Presumption in Favor of Arbitration." 28 Dec. 2008 Gershelfeld, Walter J., Gershenfeld, Gladys. "Current Issues in Discharge Arbitration." Dispute Resolution Journal. May-Jul.2000. BNET Business Network. 28 Dec. 2008 IUS Labor 4/2006. "Principles in Collision: Judicial Authority vs. Private Adjudication of Labor Rights." 28 Dec 2008 Read More