121 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 1997), 96-3063, International Union v. Loral Corp.

Docket Nº:96-3063.
Citation:121 F.3d 708
Party Name:INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LORAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:August 01, 1997
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 708

121 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 1997)

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

LORAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-3063.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

August 1, 1997

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Before MERRITT, KENNEDY, and BOGGS, Circuit Judges.

MERRITT, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff, International Union, United Automobile Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, filed this action against defendant Loral Corporation to compel arbitration of a grievance. Loral Corporation argues that the parties did not have an agreement to arbitrate because the parties had not signed a new agreement after their collective bargaining agreement had expired. The district court correctly found that the parties had an interim agreement to arbitrate, and its summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Union to compel arbitration is clearly justified.

I.

On October 31, 1988, after a 90-day strike, the Union and Loral Corporation signed a collective bargaining agreement. The agreement was effective from November 1, 1988 through August, 10, 1991. Before the expiration of the agreement, the parties began to negotiate a new agreement, in which the Union was represented by David Terry, the Chair of its Executive Committee, and Loral by Gregory Myer. The parties were unable to agree on all of the terms of the new collective bargaining agreement, and so they agreed to extend the old agreement until October 14, 1991.

On October 8, 1991, Loral gave the Union a document identifying the terms from the 1988 agreement that the parties had tentatively agreed would become part of the 1991 agreement. Among these terms was the arbitration clause. On October 9, 1991, Loral gave the Union a Final Proposal. The Final Proposal was two pages in length and incorporated "[a]ll provisions of the Basic Labor Agreement that have been tentatively agreed upon (TA'd)," new terms agreed upon by the parties, and proposals by Loral that were disputed. The arbitration provision was still included. The Final Proposal provided that it would be implemented on October 14, 1991. In addition, the Final Proposal contained the following provision:

No Ratification: If this Final Proposal is not ratified by October 21st, 1991, the No Strike/No Lockout provision shall be rescinded and non-operative for either party.

In its...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP