Legal Setting of Labor Arbitration - Chapter 2 - Fundamentals of Labor Arbitration
Rocco M. Scanza and Jay E. Grenig both serve on the American Arbitration Association's labor panel.
Rocco M. Scanza is an attorney, arbitrator and mediator of labor and employment disputes. He is also the executive director of Cornell University's Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution, where he teaches courses in workplace alternative dispute resolution. Mr. Scanza was formerly a national vice president at the American Arbitration Association. He graduated from Queens College in New York City and Loyola Law School of Los Angeles. He lives and works in Ithaca, N.Y.
Jay E. Grenig is a professor of law at Marquette University Law School. He has served as an arbitrator or mediator in over 2,000 labor and employment disputes. A member of the National Academy of Arbitrators, the American Law Institute, and the Order of the Coif, Mr. Grenig is also a fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers. He formerly chaired the Labor and Employment Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools and served as a consultant to the National Commission on Employment Policy. He has written or co-written numerous books and articles.
Originally from Fundamentals of Labor Arbitration
United States Supreme Court decisions have played an important role in shaping the legal setting of arbitration in the United States. Some of these decisions have involved arbitration between parties covered by the Labor-Management Relations Act (“LMRA”). They also have had a great influence on all types of labor arbitration. Most states have arbitration statutes and judicial decisions that may apply to labor arbitration. These statutes and decisions apply to employment situations that are not covered by the LMRA. Where the employment relationship is covered by the LMRA, state laws may apply only if they are not preempted by federal labor law. Some statutes have specific arbitration provisions governing public sector employment.
2:02 SECTION 301 OF THE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT
In Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S. Ct. 912, 1 L. Ed. 2d 972 (1957), the Supreme Court held that Section 301 of the LMRA gives a party to a collective bargaining agreement containing an arbitration clause the right to request that a court compel arbitration. The Court determined that “federal labor law” fashioned by federal courts governed such actions, rather than state law.
2:02 Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act
2:03 The Trilogy
2:04 Breach of Contract
2:05 Enjoining Strikes
2:07 Statutory Claims
2:08 Duty of Fair Representation
2:09 Federal Civil Service
2:10 Interpretation of Collective Bargaining Agreement
2:11 State Court Jurisdiction
2:12 Claims Asserted Under State Law
2:13 Wrongful Discharge Claims
2:14 National Labor Relations Board Decisions