The Boeing Co. v. Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers Of Am. (Uaw, Afl-Cio), Local 1069, 349 F.2d 412 (3rd Cir. 1965). · Go Syfert
Search
The Boeing Co. v. Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers Of Am. (Uaw, Afl-Cio), Local 1069, 349 F.2d 412 (3rd Cir. 1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: E.M. Diagnostic Systems, Inc. v. Local 169, International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen And Helpers Of America (ca3, 1987-03-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) E.M. Diagnostic Systems, Inc. v. Local 169, International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen And Helpers Of America
3rd Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Boeing, 349 F.2d at 413.
cited Cited as authority (rule) E.M. Diagnostic Systems, Inc. v. Local 169, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
3rd Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Boeing, 349 F.2d at 413.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hahnemann University v. District 1199c, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees and American Arbitration Association
3rd Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Teamsters v. Western Pennsylvania Motor Carriers Assoc., 574 F.2d 783, 788-89 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 828 , 99 S.Ct. 102 , 58 L.Ed.2d 122 (1978); Boeing Co. v. UAW, 349 F.2d 412, 413 (3d Cir.1965).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Local 13, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Afl-Cio v. General Electric Company
3rd Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
The parties are free to make that promise as broad or as narrow as they wish. . . .” In Boeing Co. v. UAW, 349 F.2d 412, 413 (1965), this Court in a per curiam opinion affirmed the district court’s decision that the Boeing Company was not required to arbitrate the termination of its practice of distributing Christmas turkeys.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) RITE AID OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC v. UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 1776 (2×)
unknown court · confidence medium
Boeing Co. v. Int’l Union, UAW, 349 F.2d 412, 413 (3d Cir. 1965); see also E.M.
discussed Cited "see" International Union of Electrical, Radio and MacHine Workers, Afl-Cio v. General Electric Company
2d Cir. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Boeing Co. v. International Union, United Auto, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 1069, 349 F.2d 412 (3d Cir. 1965); Independent Petroleum Workers of America, Inc. v. American Oil Co., 324 F.2d 903 (7th Cir.), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 379 U.S. 130 , 85 S.Ct. 271 , 13 L. *261 Ed.2d 333 (1964).
cited Cited "see" Jennings v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION
S.D.N.Y. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See Boeing Co. v. International Union, United Automobile, etc. Workers of America, 231 F. Supp. 930 (E.D.Pa.1964), aff’d 349 F.2d 412 (3d Cir. 1965).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Communications Workers of America, Local 1087 v. Monmouth County Board of Social Services
N.J. · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Boeing Co. v. Local 1609, UAW, 349 F.2d 412, 413 (3d Cir.1965) (where collective bargaining agreement limited arbitration to grievances involving a “specific provision of [the] agreement” and agreement was silent on the subject of Christmas turkeys, dispute arising out of employer’s decision to eliminate distribution of turkeys to its employees on Christmas was not arbitrable); Independent Petroleum Workers, Inc. v. American Oil Co., 324 F.2d 903, 904-07 (7th Cir.) (where collective bargaining agreement provided for arbitration of “[q]uestions directly involving or arising f…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The Boeing Company, a Delaware Corporation.
v.
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (Uaw, Afl-Cio), Local 1069, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (Uaw, Afl-Cio), and American Arbitration Association, a New York Corporation
15056.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Aug 10, 1965.
349 F.2d 412
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

349 F.2d 412

The BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation.
v.
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW, AFL-CIO), Local 1069, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW, AFL-CIO), Appellants, and
American Arbitration Association, a New York Corporation.

No. 15056.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued April 6, 1965.

Decided August 10, 1965.

Alan R. Howe, Philadelphia, Pa. (Edward Davis, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.

Robert M. Landis, Philadelphia, Pa., Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Before GANEY and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges, and KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

1

This matter concerns itself with an action by an employer under Section 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, for a declaratory judgment seeking the court to determine whether or not the employer was obligated to arbitrate a dispute arising out of the employer's decision to terminate the distribution of Christmas turkeys to its employees. The defendant-union filed a counterclaim seeking to compel the employer to arbitrate the turkey matter and the case came before the court below on the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

2

Judge Grim, in the court below, after examining the arbitration clause and, in a clear and lucid opinion, held that the company was bound only to arbitrate grievances which involved "the interpretation or application of provisions of this agreement * * *" and that "Arbitration was limited to grievances involving a `specific provision of this agreement * * *.'" Further, the court pointed out that the exclusionary clause in the arbitration article stated that the "jurisdiction of the arbitrator shall be limited to * * * the interpretation and application of the specific provisions of this agreement at issue" and could only mean that it was intended to limit the scope of the arbitrable matter.

3

We are in agreement thereof and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court below.