Norman J. Miller v. Spector Freight Systems, Inc.

First Circuit

Norman J. Miller v. Spector Freight Systems, Inc.

366 F.2d 92, 63 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2222, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4908

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedSeptember 21, 1966

Docket6738

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 366 F.2d 92 (Norman J. Miller v. Spector Freight Systems, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Norman J. Miller v. Spector Freight Systems, Inc., 366 F.2d 92, 63 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2222, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4908 (1st Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant employee contends, despite a provision in a collective bargaining agreement making the decision of arbitrators final and binding, that he may sue his employer under Labor Management Relations Act § 301, 29 U.S.C. § 185, to contest his discharge even though the arbitrator found that the discharge was for good cause. He does not allege improper conduct by anyone with respect to the arbitration, or inadequate representation by the union. He merely contends that after the arbitrator’s adverse decision he is entitled to a judicial hearing. For this he cites Humphrey v. Moore, 1964, 375 U.S. 335, 84 S.Ct. 363, 11 L.Ed.2d 370, and Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 1965, 379 U.S. 650, 85 S.Ct. 614, 13 L.Ed.2d 580. We do not find this broad position supported by these decisions, or by any other. Cf. Haynes v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co., 5 Cir., 1966, 362 F.2d 414. See also Reeves v. Tarvizian, 1 Cir., 1965, 351 F.2d 889. Appellant had no contractual right not to be discharged except insofar as the collective bargaining agreement gave it to him. Unless he can show the arbitrator had no jurisdiction of this particular dispute, or some improper conduct, as in Humphrey, he must take the entire contract, including the arbitration provisions.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant employee contends, despite a provision in a collective bargaining agreement making the decision of arbitrators final and binding, that he may sue his employer under Labor Management Relations Act § 301, 29 U.S.C. § 185, to contest his discharge even though the arbitrator found that the discharge was for good cause. He does not allege improper conduct by anyone with respect to the arbitration, or inadequate representation by the union. He merely contends that after the arbitrator’s adverse decision he is entitled to a judicial hearing. For this he cites Humphrey v. Moore, 1964, 375 U.S. 335, 84 S.Ct. 363, 11 L.Ed.2d 370, and Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 1965, 379 U.S. 650, 85 S.Ct. 614, 13 L.Ed.2d 580. We do not find this broad position supported by these decisions, or by any other. Cf. Haynes v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co., 5 Cir., 1966, 362 F.2d 414. See also Reeves v. Tarvizian, 1 Cir., 1965, 351 F.2d 889. Appellant had no contractual right not to be discharged except insofar as the collective bargaining agreement gave it to him. Unless he can show the arbitrator had no jurisdiction of this particular dispute, or some improper conduct, as in Humphrey, he must take the entire contract, including the arbitration provisions.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

366 F.2d 92, 63 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2222, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norman-j-miller-v-spector-freight-systems-inc-ca1-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack