NCJ Number
96977
Date Published
1985
Length
12 pages
Annotation
This paper discusses three areas in which the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in W. R. Grace and Company may have serious ramifications: the place of 'public policy' in the enforcement of arbitral awards, the 'finality' of arbitral awards, and the determination of arbitral jurisdiction by both courts and arbitrators.
Abstract
The Court's confrontation of two issues involving public policy is addressed: obedience by litigants to judicial orders, including injunctions; and the impact, if any, of Title VII considerations on either arbitral or judicial authority. The Court is believed to have erred in both regards. First, it focused on what was 'fair' while failing to address the question of whether obedience to a court mandate overrode compliance with a collective bargaining contract. Second, although acknowledging that voluntary compliance with Title VII also is an important public policy, the Court did not recognize that Award No. 2 attempted to invalidate the prior award. The Court emphasized that it was dealing only with the enforceability of Award No. 2; nonetheless, Award No. 2 specifically overruled rather than disregarded Award No. 1. Both arbitrators are believed to have had the contractually bargained-for authority to determine their own jurisdiction and authority. The question remains as to whether the second arbitrator had the jurisdiction and authority to declare the first arbitrator's award invalid. Eleven references are included.