Citation network
United Parcel Svc., Inc. Vs. Mitchell
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 20, 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
-
U.S. 56 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court United Parcel Svc., Inc. v. MitchellSearch
-
U.S. 56 (1981) United Parcel Service, Inc. v. MitchellSearch
-
Court properly chose the 90-day period for the bringing of an action to vacate an arbitration award. Cf. Hines v. AnchorSearch
-
is the most appropriate depends upon the nature of the federal claim and the federal policies involved. Auto Workers v. HoosierSearch
-
a), and Hines v. AnchorSearch
-
Parcel Grievance Committee, composed of three union and three company representatives (the Joint Panel). Cf. Hines v. AnchorSearch
-
a). See Hines v. AnchorSearch
-
of the LMRA. As this Court pointed out in Auto Workers v. HoosierSearch
-
Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
Liotta v. NationalSearch
-
The Court of Appeals purported to rely on this Court's decision in Hines v. AnchorSearch
-
Id. at 424 U. S. 575 . See also Humphrey v. MooreSearch
-
Steelworkers v. WarriorSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the collective bargaining agreement affecting the entire relationship between company and union. See, e.g., Humphrey v. MooreSearch
-
statute, reversing a District Court decision borrowing the State's 6-year period for actions upon a contract. Liotta v. NationalSearch
-
employer, while actions brought by employees against both their union and employer pursuant to our decisions in Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
U. S. 171 (1967), and Hines v. AnchorSearch
-
NLRA. We decline to consider this argument, since it was not raised by either of the parties here or below. See Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
Knetsch v. UnitedSearch
-
to such an action. See Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
record. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring in the judgment. The Court believes itself obligated by Auto Workers v. HoosierSearch
-
Hines v. AnchorSearch
-
Machinists v. NLRBSearch
-
Id. at 362 U. S. 428 (quoting NLRB v. ChildsSearch
-
Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOCSearch
-
Electrical Workers v. FoustSearch
-
U. S. 46 , n. 8. The Court first recognized the statutory duty of fair representation in Steele v. LouisvilleSearch
-
U. S. 192 , a case arising under the Railway Labor Act, but in a series of decisions beginning with Ford Motor Co. v. HuffmanSearch
-
duty of fair representation applies equally to the NLRA. The Court explained the derivation of the principle in Hines v. AnchorSearch
-
must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents. . . .' Ford Motor Co. v. HuffmanSearch
-
The union's broad authority in negotiating and administering effective agreements is 'undoubted,' Humphrey v. MooreSearch
-
agent a responsibility equal in scope to its authority, 'the responsibility and duty of fair representation.' Humphrey v. MooreSearch
-
is 'subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion.' Ford Motor Co. v. HuffmanSearch
-
That this duty of fair representation under the NLRA may be judicially enforced was made clear in Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
b)(1)(A).In Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
that the Board had been correct. 386 U.S. at 386 U. S. 186 . The three concurring Justices in Vaca v. SipesSearch
-
concluded that breach of the fair representation duty is an unfair labor practice. See Newport News Shipbuilding Co. v. NLRBSearch
-
Abilene Sheet Metal, Inc. v. NLRBSearch
-
NLRB v. AmericanSearch
-
Kesner v. NLRBSearch
-
Kling v. NLRBSearch
-
Truck Drivers v. NLRBSearch
-
Denver Stereotypers v. NLRBSearch
-
F.2d 134, 136 (CA10). But see NLRB v. MirandaSearch
-
failure to establish a time limitation for an action it expressly creates by statute. Cf. Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOCSearch
-
by the Act to include grievance procedures as a part of the continuing collective bargaining process. See NLRB v. AcmeSearch
-
The Court held in Machinists v. NLRBSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United Parcel Svc., Inc. v. MitchellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial