Similar facts followed the United States Steelworkers v American Mfg Co, where the employees were eager to compel arbitration as the right course of action with respect to violation of the CBA. It was determined that the court was in place just to ascertain whether the grievance suffered was governed by the contract on the face of things, and in the event that it was, arbitration was necessarily the right course of action.
The court was not responsible for judging the merits of the grievance, or “considering whether there is equity in a particular claim or determining whether there is particular language in the written instrument which will support the claim” (United States Steelworkers v American Manufacturing Com, 1960). The union simply argued that the company had violated a specific provision of the contract whereas the company took the position that it had not.
As such, there was just an argument concerning the “interpretation, application and meaning” (United States Steelworkers v American Manufacturing Com, 1960) of the CBA, necessitating an order for arbitration. Specific adherence was required to a specific provision of the contract that promised this resort to arbitration if there was to be a dispute between the employee and the employer, and the court held that it was not required to take any other issues comprised within the contract into consideration unless, by the very terms of the arbitration promise, they are supposed to be considered in its interpretation. Thus, having decided that the clause rightly addressed the current dispute, the court decided to enforce the award offered by the arbitrator.
This is just a sample term paper for marketing purposes. If you want to order term papers, essays, research papers, dissertations, case study, book reports, reviews etc. Please access the order form.