Introduction
So far the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear only one arbitration case governed by the Federal Arbitration Act: Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2009), petition for cert. granted June 15, 2009 (No. 08-1198), which has been set for oral argument at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, December 9, 2009. (See Russ Kunkel’s LawMemo Arbitration Blog here.) We have written extensively on Stolt-Nielsen, which concerns whether class arbitration may be imposed on parties whose contracts are silent on that point. (Posts available here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)
The Supreme Court has also agreed to hear two labor arbitration cases. The first is Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen (08-604), which is governed by the the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”), 45 U.S.C. §§151 et seq. The RLA, among other things, requires arbitration before the National Railroad Adjustment Board (“the Board”) of labor disputes involving railway workers. Union Pacific, for all practical purposes, is therefore not a contractual arbitration case, but an administrative law one, and the outcome will likely have little or no effect on Federal Arbitration Act jurisprudence. The Court held oral argument on October 7, 2009. (Oral argument Tr. here)
The second is Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (08-1214), which arises under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The Court is expected to set argument for later this Fall. (See Russ Kunkel’s LawMemo Employment Law Blog here.) Though not governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, Granite Rock, unlike Union Pacific, is a contractual arbitration case. And the outcome may be relevant to cases falling under the Federal Arbitration Act.
We briefly summarize below the issues the Court will presumably address in these labor arbitration cases and discuss why Granite Rock may be more controversial than it appears at first blush. Continue Reading »
