Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

GRANITE ROCK COMPANY v. INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

Docket No.: 08-1214
Certiorari Granted: Jun 29 2009
Argued: January 19, 2010
Decided: June 24, 2010

Topics:

Arbitration, Labor Management Relations Act, NLRA, National Labor Relations Act, concerted activity, conditions of employment

PartyNames: Granite Rock Company v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al.
Petitioner: Granite Rock Company
Respondent: International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: 546 F.3d 1169

Granite Rock Company
v.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al.
Question Presented:

1. Does a federal court have jurisdiction to determine whether a collective bargaining agreement was formed when it is disputed whether any binding contract exists, but no party makes an independent challenge to the arbitration clause apart from claiming it is inoperative before the contract is established? 2. Does Section 30l(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, which generally preempts otherwise available state law causes of action, provide a cause of action against an international union that is not a direct signatory to the collective bargaining agreement, but effectively displaces its signatory local union and causes a strike breaching a collective bargaining agreement for its own benefit?

Question:

1) Does a federal court have jurisdiction to determine whether a collective bargaining agreement was formed when it is disputed whether any binding contract exists, but no party makes an independent challenge to the arbitration clause? 2) Does the LMRA provide a cause of action against an international union that is not a direct signatory to one of its local's collective bargaining agreements, but causes a strike that breaches the CBA for its own benefit?

GRANITE ROCK COMPANY v. INT'L BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS
ORAL ARGUMENT

January 19, 2010

Holding: reversed in part, affirmed in part, and
Vote: 7-2
Opinion By: Justice Clarence Thomas
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)