No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
In United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc. the Supreme Court reversed a Fifth Circuit decision, which, on public policy grounds, had affirmed the vacating of an arbitrator's award.This paper, prepared against the backdrop of the court of appeal's decision, explores rival conceptions of the scope of the public policy defense.An addendum treats the Supreme Court's decision.The author argues that under the Supreme Court's approach and the wider traditions of contract law, that defense involves a balancing approach-even in the labor-arbitration context.He suggests that the limitist view of that defense, in the just-cause context and elsewhere, would disregard the proper roles ofjudges and arbi trators in balancing societal and contractual concerns.He also points to considerations that would undercut the finality which the limitist approach is designed to promote.The author concludes by suggesting that the limitist position is incompatible with established traditions, recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, and that a broader conception of the public policy defense, which applies to contracts in general, also applies to labor arbitration awards.My topic-the scope of the public policy defense to the enforceability of a labor arbitration award-is an old problem.'That problem has recently been highlighted by a series of discordant decisions, 2 and by the recent Supreme Court case, United
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.