Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/650/902/429624/
Timestamp: 2013-05-25 21:05:49
Document Index: 433849748

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 10', '§ 160', '§ 301', '§ 10', '§ 301', '§ 301']

650 F.2d 902: Joseph A. Davidson, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Roadway Express, Inc., Defendant-appellant :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia
Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Federal Case Law > US Courts of Appeals Cases > F.2d > Volume 650 > 650 F.2d 902 - Joseph A. Davidson, Plaintiff-appellee, v. ...	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
650 F.2d 902: Joseph A. Davidson, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Roadway Express, Inc., Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. - 650 F.2d 902
Argued April 16, 1981.Decided June 5, 1981.Rehearing Denied August 14, 1981
1 Plaintiff has attempted to argue that the grievance procedure established by the governing collective bargaining agreement is not an "arbitration" procedure. Brief for Appellee at 19. This argument ignores the fact that even though the local supplemental agreement does not explicitly describe the binding grievance procedure as an "arbitration" of the employee's claim, the supplemental agreement does in fact establish an arbitration procedure for discharge cases as contemplated by Article 8 of the National Master Freight Agreement
2 Plaintiff's suit is also untimely under the limitations period found in § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(b) (1976), a period based on federal law that Justice Stewart has urged should control in § 301 actions. Mitchell, -- U.S. at --, 101 S.Ct. at 1565-68 (Stewart, J., concurring). The Court expressly reserved this question in Mitchell. Id. -- U.S. -- at --, 101 S.Ct. at 1562-63 n.2. We do note, however, that the logic of applying § 10(b) to a § 301 suit against a union seems less compelling when, as here, the § 301 suit is filed against the employer. See Mitchell, -- U.S. at --, 101 S.Ct. at 1571 (Stevens, J., concurring)