Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Clayton Vs. Automobile Workers

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 26, 1981

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

58 entries 3 linked 55 unlinked
Show
  1. Vaca Vs. Sipes US Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1967
  2. Humphrey Vs. Moore US Supreme Court · Jan 06, 1964
  3. Republic Steel Corp. Vs. Maddox US Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1965
  4. Clayton v. Automobile
    Search
  5. Workers - 451 U.S. 679 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Clayton v. Automobile
    Search
  6. Workers, 451 U.S. 679 (1981) Clayton v. International
    Search
  7. not directly applicable to the issue whether to require exhaustion of internal union procedures. Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox
    Search
  8. a). Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox
    Search
  9. Hines v. Anchor
    Search
  10. respect to either the suit against the employer or the suit against the union. II In Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox
    Search
  11. In deciding that issue, we looked to principles of federal common law. See Textile Workers v. Lincoln
    Search
  12. resolution of disputes arising over the interpretation and application of collective bargaining agreements. See Hines v. Anchor
    Search
  13. union matters such as those involving the interpretation and application of a union constitution. As we stated in NLRB v. Marine
    Search
  14. policies extending far beyond internal union interests. Page 451 U. S. 689 See United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell
    Search
  15. Hines v. Anchor
    Search
  16. internal union procedures that may not be adequate to redress their underlying grievances. As we stated in NLRB v. Marine
    Search
  17. United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell
    Search
  18. ante at 451 U. S. 63 , quoting Auto Workers v. Hoosier
    Search
  19. suits, based on the same facts, proceeding at different paces in its courtroom. As we suggested in Vaca v. Sipes
    Search
  20. Together with No. 80-54, ITT Gilfillan, a Division of International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. Clayton
    Search
  21. breached its duty of fair representation and that the employer breached the collective bargaining agreement. Hines v. Anchor
    Search
  22. Johnson v. General
    Search
  23. Geddes v. Chrysler
    Search
  24. Petersen v. Rath
    Search
  25. Retana v. Apartment
    Search
  26. Varra v. Dillon
    Search
  27. Baldini v. Local
    Search
  28. Winter v. Local
    Search
  29. Harrison v. Chrysler
    Search
  30. Fizer v. Safeway
    Search
  31. Imel v. Zohn
    Search
  32. Tinsley v. United
    Search
  33. Buzzard v. Local
    Search
  34. agreement, he should also be required to pursue the dispute resolution procedures created by that agreement. See Hines v. Anchor
    Search
  35. In NLRB v. Marine
    Search
  36. bargaining agreement. Damages, however, can be assessed against both the employer and the union. As we stated in Vaca v. Sipes
    Search
  37. waiver provision in Art. IX, which establishes the 15-day time limit for requesting arbitration. See also Tinsley v. United
    Search
  38. when those procedures could lead to reactivation of a stalled grievance is wholly consistent with Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox
    Search
  39. suit would still be entitled to prove that no such breach had occurred. See Vaca v. Sipes
    Search
  40. standard for breach of the duty of fair representation that we developed in Vaca v. Sipes
    Search
  41. Klein, supra, at 99. See also Johnson v. General
    Search
  42. is immaterial. The situation presented in this case is well within the doctrine underlying Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox
    Search
  43. time limits that appear on their face to bar revival of the grievance. As the Court noted in John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston
    Search
  44. reviewing the manner in which it has represented an employee during a grievance. It is worth nothing that neither NLRB v. Marine
    Search
  45. U.S. Supreme Court Clayton v. Automobile
    Search
  46. Clayton v. International
    Search
  47. II In Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox
    Search
  48. See Textile Workers v. Lincoln
    Search
  49. NLRB v. Marine
    Search
  50. See United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial