词条 | Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. |
释义 |
|Litigants=Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. |ArgueDate=November 5 |ArgueYear=1973 |DecideDate=February 19 |DecideYear=1974 |FullName=Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. |USVol=415 |USPage=36 |ParallelCitations=94 S. Ct. 1011; 39 L. Ed. 2d 147 |Docket=72-5847 |OralArgument= |OpinionAnnouncement= |Prior=Summary judgment granted, 346 F. Supp. [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/346/1012/1879162/ 1012] (D. Colo. 1971); affirmed, 466 F.2d [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/466/1209/424758/ 1209] (10th Cir. 1972); cert. granted, {{ussc|410|925|1973|el=no}}. |Procedural= |Subsequent=On remand, 519 F.2d [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/519/503/85636/ 503] (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, {{ussc|423|1058|1976|el=no}}. |Holding=An employee's statutory right to trial de novo under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not foreclosed by prior submission of his claim to final arbitration under the nondiscrimination clause of a collective bargaining agreement. |SCOTUS=1972-1975 |Majority=Powell |JoinMajority=unanimous |Concurrence= |JoinConcurrence= |Concurrence2= |Dissent= |JoinDissent= |Dissent2= |JoinDissent2= |Overturned previous case= |LawsApplied=Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 }} Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (1974), is a US labor law case, concerning arbitration with collective agreements for labor rights. FactsMr Harrell Alexander, Sr., an employee at the Gardner-Denver Co filed a grievance claiming he had been wrongfully terminated for race discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII. The arbitrator held that he was terminated for poor work performance. The District Court granted summary judgment to the employer, based on the grievance procedure.[1] The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the District Court's ruling.[2] JudgmentThe Supreme Court held that the case should have been re-evaluated afresh. Arbitral procedures, while well suited to the resolution of contractual disputes, make arbitration a comparatively inappropriate forum for the final resolution of rights created by Title VII. This conclusion rests first on the special role of the arbitrator, whose task is to effectuate the intent of the parties rather than the requirements of enacted legislation. Where the collective-bargaining agreement conflicts with Title VII, the arbitrator must follow the agreement. To be sure, the tension between contractual and statutory objectives may be mitigated where a collective-bargaining agreement contains provisions facially similar to those of Title VII. But other facts may still render arbitral processes comparatively inferior to judicial processes in the protection of Title VII rights. Among these is the fact that the specialized competence of arbitrators pertains primarily to the law of the shop, not the law of the land. United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 581—583, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1352—1353, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960).[3] Parties usually choose an arbitrator because they trust his knowledge and judgment concerning the demands and norms of industrial relations. On the other hand, the resolution of statutory or constitutional issues is a primary responsibility of courts, and judicial construction has proved especially necessary with respect to Title VII, whose broad language frequently can be given meaning only by reference to public law concepts. See also{{Slist organize}}
References1. ^{{cite court |litigants=Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. |vol=346 |reporter=F. Supp. |opinion=1012 |pinpoint= |court=D. Colo. |date=1971 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/346/1012/1879162/ |accessdate=2018-10-29 |quote=}} 2. ^{{cite court |litigants=Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. |vol=466 |reporter=F.2d |opinion=1209 |pinpoint= |court=10th Cir. |date=1972 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/466/1209/424758/ |accessdate=2018-10-29 |quote=}} 3. ^See also Gould, Labor Arbitration of Grievances Involving Racial Discrimination, 118 U.Pa.L.Rev. 40, 47—48 (1969); Platt, The Relationship between Arbitration and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 3 Ga.L.Rev. 398 (1969). Significantly, a substantial proportion of labor arbitrators are not lawyers. See Note, The NLRB and Deference to Arbitration, 77 Yale L.J. 1191, 1194 n. 28 (1968). This is not to suggest, of course, that arbitrators do not possess a high degree of competence with respect to the vital role in implementing the federal policy favoring arbitration of labor disputes. External links
| case = Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., {{ussc|415|36|1974|el=no}} | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/415/36/ | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep415/usrep415036/usrep415036.pdf | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/72-5847 | other_source1 = WorldLII | other_url1 =http://www.worldlii.org/us/cases/federal/USSC/1974/19.html 4 : United States labor case law|United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court|1974 in United States case law |
随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识,基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识,是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。