Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

328 F.2d 614

Docket No. 20435.

International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, & Agricultural Implement Workers v. Daniel Radiator Corp. of Texas

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1964-03-02

2 counsel of record

Relies on United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1964-03-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 1996

5 federal appellate · 1 district ·

601964197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

James E. Youngdahl, Little Rock, Ark., McMath, Leatherman, Woods & Youngdahl, Little Rock, Ark., Ryan & Eckhardt, Houston, Tex., of counsel, for appellants.

V. R. Burch, Jr., Houston, Tex., Baker, Botts, Shepherd & Coates, Houston, Tex., of counsel, for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, BREITENSTEIN* and BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a suit for specific performance of a collective bargaining agreement to arbitrate, brought under Sec. 301 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185.

¶2

Defendant-appellee successfully contended in the lower court that the discharge grievance in question was not arbitrable because of an alleged settlement during its processing.

¶3

Plaintiffs-appellants urge here, as they did below, that questions concerning compliance with the grievance procedure are exclusively for the arbitrator, and that there was no settlement of the grievance to the satisfaction of the contracting parties, certainly no evidence establishing this as a matter of law.

¶4

Citing the leading cases both from the Supreme Court and from this court, they insist that the district judge's decision was wrong. We agree.

¶5

The authorities are quite well collected in the briefs. From a reading of them, it is evident that this is just another case in which management and labor see the invoked statute, Sec. 301, differently, and management's view is wrong.1

¶6

The Fifth Circuit has been responsive to the fashioning of Sec. 301 law by the Supreme Court.2

¶7

The decision of the court below was contrary to the uniform course of decisions not only in the Supreme Court but in this court.

¶8

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

/328/f2d/614 · .json · Public domain