TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Norman J. Miller v. Spector Freight Systems, Inc.

Norman J. MILLER, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SPECTOR FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Appellee

Miller v. Spector Freight Sys., Inc., 366 F.2d 92 (1st Cir. 1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 21, 1966
Docket
No. 6738
Judges
Aldrich, McEntee, Coffin
Citations
366 F.2d 9263 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 22221966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4908

Opinion — Per Curiam

OPINION OF THE COURT.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant employee contends, despite a provision in a collective bargaining agreement making the decision of arbitrators final and binding, that he may sue his employer under Labor Management Relations Act § 301, 29 U.S.C. § 185 , to contest his discharge even though the arbitrator found that the discharge was for good cause. He does not allege improper conduct by anyone with respect to the arbitration, or inadequate representation by the union. He merely contends that after the arbitrator’s adverse decision he is entitled to a judicial hearing. For this he cites Humphrey v. Moore, 1964, 375 U.S. 335 , 84 S.Ct. 363 , 11 L.Ed.2d 370 , and Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 1965, 379 U.S. 650 , 85 S.Ct. 614 , 13 L.Ed.2d 580 . We do not find this broad position supported by these decisions, or by any other. Cf. Haynes v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co., 5 Cir., 1966, 362 F.2d 414 . See also Reeves v. Tarvizian, 1 Cir., 1965, 351 F.2d 889 . Appellant had no contractual right not to be discharged except insofar as the collective bargaining agreement gave it to him. Unless he can show the arbitrator had no jurisdiction of this particular dispute, or some improper conduct, as in Humphrey , he must take the entire contract, including the arbitration provisions.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
1967: 31969: 11971: 51974: 11977: 21978: 11979: 11983: 11984: 119672026peak 1971 · 5

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335 (1964) 788
Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U.S. 650 (1965) 1,132
Woodrow Haynes v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co. (Anniston Soil Pipe Div., 362 F.2d 414 (5th Cir. 1966) 58
Reeves v. Tarvizian, 351 F.2d 889 (1st Cir. 1965) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list