Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): See In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 109, 117 (2d Cir.2013). Section 301 of the LMRA supplies jurisdiction for “[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization.” 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). It is well-established that card check and neutrality agreements with arbitration provisions are contracts within the meaning of § 301. For example, in Hotel & Restaurant Emps. Union Local 217 v. J.P. Morgan Hotel, this Court affirmed jurisdiction over a dispute arising from an agreement between an employer and a union with card check, neutrality, and arbitration provisions similar to those at issue here. 996 F.2d 561, 563 (2d Cir.1993); cf. Retail Clerks International Ass’n v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc., 369 U.S. 17, 25-28, 82 S.Ct. 541, 7 L.Ed.2d 503 (1962) (<HOLDING>). Our sister circuits have similarly understood 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that immunity agreements are analogous to plea agreements and are enforced under principles of contract law within the constitutional safeguards of due process (B) holding that agreements other than fullfledged collective bargaining agreements may be contracts within the meaning of  301 (C) holding that collective bargaining agreements cannot compel the arbitration of statutory rights (D) holding that property settlement agreements may be specifically enforced (E) holding that where a collective bargaining agreements terms are clear but the management has engaged in contrary practice for a number of years the words of the agreement must be enforced
Output (English): holding that immunity agreements are analogous to plea agreements and are enforced under principles of contract law within the constitutional safeguards of due process