INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, DISTRICT LODGE NO. 87, LOCAL LODGE NO. 1309, PETITIONER,
v.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, RESPONDENT, AND VALLEY FORD SALES, INC., D/B/A FRIENDLY FORD, INTERVENOR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the National Labor Relations Board did not abuse its discretion in deferring to the arbitrator's decision regarding the employer's unilateral rescission of a wage incentive plan.
The Union petitioned for review of an NLRB decision that deferred to an arbitrator's ruling. The arbitrator found that the employer's unilateral termi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Labor Management Relations Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The case is before us upon the petition of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL— CIO, District Lodge No. 87, Local Lodge No. 1309 (“the Union”) to review a decision of the NLRB.
Pursuant to a stipulation by The Union and the employer, Friendly Ford, the dispute was referred to an arbitrator. The dispute concerned the alleged illegality of the employer’s unilateral rescission of its wage incentive plan, which the Union claimed was an unfair labor practice. The arbitrator concluded that the unilateral termination was not a violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1) & (5)). The arbitrator’s conclusion was based upon his determination that the contract permitted the employer unilaterally to terminate and that the Union, in any event, had waived its right to complain about such termination.
The narrow issue before us is whether the Board abused its discretion in deferring to the decision of the arbitrator and in dismissing the unfair labor practice complaint. We can find no basis upon which to conclude that the Board abused its discretion in deferring to the arbitrator. (E.g., Carey v. Westinghouse (1963) 375 U.S. 261, 84 S.Ct. 401, 11 L.Ed.2d 320; Spielberg Mfg. Co., (1955) 112 NLRB 1080.) For this reason we have no occasion to reach the merits of the underlying controversy.
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Pincus Bros., 620 F.2d 367 (3d Cir. 1980)
-
Hawaiian Hauling Serv., Ltd. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 545 F.2d 674 (9th Cir. 1976)
Authorities Cited
- Carey, President of the Int'l Union of Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers, Afl-Cio v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 375 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1964)