NCJ Number
98651
Journal
West Virginia Law Review Volume: 86 Issue: 3 Dated: (Spring 1984) Pages: 705-716
Date Published
1984
Length
12 pages
Annotation
Three cases being litigated by the United Mine Workers of America are presented to illustrate what happens when the autonomous rule of law established by the arbitration agreement is examined by the courts.
Abstract
In all three, the employer challenged the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement rather than the award. In Clinchfield I and Clinchfield II, the employers succeeded in judicially evading adverse awards. The judicial opinions disclose the substitution of judicial interpretation in place of the arbitrator's interpretation. This result is in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Steelworkers Trilology that protected labor arbitration awards from expansive judicial review. In Kris-Beth, Inc., the court directed a stay of an arbitration award on the basis of a suit filed by a party extraneous to the collective bargaining agreement. Appeals have been unsuccessful to date, and the arbitration award has been denied enforcement for over a year. These cases demonstrate the perils involved in judicial intervention in the collective bargaining and grievance resolution process. The courts should not destroy the system of autonomous dispute resolution and free enterprise mandated by Congress and established by the parties in collective bargaining. If courts continue to intrude in the arbitration process by excessive review, the process will lose credibility. Management, labor units, employees, and the public will be the victims. A total of 54 footnotes are provided.