Auto, Marine & Specialty Painters Local No. 1176 v. Bay Area Sealers, Inc., 577 F.2d 609 (9th Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Auto, Marine & Specialty Painters Local No. 1176 v. Bay Area Sealers, Inc., 577 F.2d 609 (9th Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Steam Press Holdings, Inc., Dba Young Laundry and Dry Cleaning Michael Drace v. Hawaii Teamsters and Allied Workers Union, Local 996 Mel Kahele, as an Individual, Steam Press Holdings, Inc., Dba Young Laundry and Dry Cleaning Michael Drace v. Hawaii Teamsters and Allied Workers Union, Local 996, and Mel Kahele, as an Individual Hawaii Teamsters Health & Welfare Trust Fund Doe 1-150 (ca9, 2002-08-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Steam Press Holdings, Inc., Dba Young Laundry and Dry Cleaning Michael Drace v. Hawaii Teamsters and Allied Workers Union, Local 996 Mel Kahele, as an Individual, Steam Press Holdings, Inc., Dba Young Laundry and Dry Cleaning Michael Drace v. Hawaii Teamsters and Allied Workers Union, Local 996, and Mel Kahele, as an Individual Hawaii Teamsters Health & Welfare Trust Fund Doe 1-150
9th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
The broad language of the grievance clause led the court to invoke the rule that the issue of repudiation "must normally be submitted to arbitration when the contract calls for arbitral resolution of questions arising under the collective bargaining agreement. " Id. at 1282 (emphasis added); see also Morrison-Knudsen, 786 F.2d at 1357-58 (holding that matters extrinsic to collective bargaining agreement, such as equitable defenses, must be submitted to arbitration where collective bargaining agreement required "all unsettled grievances" to be submitted to arbitration); Auto, Marine & Specialty…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Steam Press Holdings, Inc. v. Hawaii Teamsters & Allied Workers Union, Local 996
9th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
The broad language of the grievance clause led the court to invoke the rule that the issue of repudiation “must normally be submitted to arbitration when the contract calls for arbitral resolution of questions arising under the collective bargaining agreement.” Id. at 1282 (emphasis added); see also Morrison-Knudsen, 786 F.2d at 1357-58 (holding that matters extrinsic to collective bargaining agreement, such as equitable defenses, must be submitted to arbitration where collective bargaining agreement required “all unsettled grievances” to be submitted to arbitration); Auto, Marine & Sp…
discussed Cited "see" California Trucking Association v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local 70, Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local 70
9th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Auto, Marine & Specialty Painters, 577 F.2d at 610-11 ("all disputes and grievances" comprehends defense of laches); cf. Rochdale Village, 605 F.2d at 1296 ("any and all dispute hereunder" excludes disputes collateral to agreement). 34 Local 70 next contends that the Lucas Flour implied no-strike principle is inapplicable because there is no express provision in the agreements denominating the grievance procedures as "final and binding arbitration." The lower court, however, correctly held that the presence of such an express appellation is irrelevant when the parties' intent indicates a d…
discussed Cited "see" California Trucking Ass'n v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers
9th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Auto, Marine & Specialty Painters, 577 F.2d at 610-11 (“all disputes and grievances” comprehends defense of laches); cf. Rochdale Village, 605 F.2d at 1296 (“any and all dispute hereunder” excludes disputes collateral to agreement).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Local Union No. 370 Of The International Union Of Operating Engineers v. Morrison-Knudsen Company, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See International Union of Operating Engineers v. Flair Builders, Inc., 406 U.S. 487, 490-92 , 92 S.Ct. 1710, 1712-13 , 32 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972) (defense of laches is for the arbitrator to decide); see also Auto Marine & Specialty Painters v. Bay Area Sealers, Inc., 577 F.2d 609 , 610 (9th Cir.1978) (defense of repudiation is for the arbitrator to decide).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Local Union No. 370 of International Union of Operating Engineers v. Morrison-Knudsen Co.
9th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See International Union of Operating Engineers v. Flair Builders, Inc., 406 U.S. 487, 490-92 , 92 S.Ct. 1710, 1712-13 , 32 L.Ed.2d 248 (1972) (defense of laches is for the arbitrator to decide); see also Auto Marine & Specialty Painters v. Bay Area Sealers, Inc., 577 F.2d 609 , 610 (9th Cir.1978) (defense of repudiation is for the arbitrator to decide).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Auto, Marine & Specialty Painters Local No. 1176
v.
Bay Area Sealers, Inc.
77-1908.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 29, 1978.
577 F.2d 609
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

577 F.2d 609

99 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2313, 84 Lab.Cas. P 10,702

AUTO, MARINE & SPECIALTY PAINTERS LOCAL NO. 1176, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BAY AREA SEALERS, INC., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 77-1908.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

June 29, 1978.

David A. Rosenfeld, of Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg, Roger, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner-appellant.

Maureen E. McClain, of Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff & Tichy, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Before BROWNING and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and KUNZIG,[*] Judge, U.S. Court of Claims.

PER CURIAM:

1

In response to appellant's petition to compel arbitration of certain grievances, appellee stipulated to the initial existence of a collective bargaining agreement between the parties but asserted the agreement had been abandoned because appellant took no action to implement it for over a year despite appellee's overtures. The district court agreed and dismissed the petition. The appellant argues that the defense of abandonment should have been left to the arbitrator. We agree.

2

In Operating Engineers Local 150 v. Flair Builders, Inc., 406 U.S. 487, 92 S.Ct. 1710, 32 L.Ed.2d 248 (1971), the Supreme Court held that a district court erred in dismissing a petition to compel arbitration on the ground of laches. The Court held that a broad arbitration clause requiring the parties to arbitrate "any difference" included the defense of laches.

3

In this case the collective bargaining agreement provided without limitation for arbitration of any "complaint against the other party regarding a grievance which has not been amicably settled" or, more simply, "all disputes and grievances." This language is sufficiently broad to include the defense of repudiation which, under the circumstances here, is equivalent to a defense of laches. See also H & M Box, Inc. v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers Local 45, 493 F.2d 1226 (1st Cir. 1974).

4

Reversed.

*

Honorable Robert L. Kunzig, Judge of the United States Court of Claims, sitting by designation