Raymond H. Grant v. Atlas Powder Co., 241 F.2d 715 (6th Cir. 1957). · Go Syfert
Search
Raymond H. Grant v. Atlas Powder Co., 241 F.2d 715 (6th Cir. 1957). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Marchant v. Schenley Industries, Inc. (tnmd, 1983-09-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marchant v. Schenley Industries, Inc.
M.D. Tenn. · 1983 · confidence medium
Grant v. Atlas Powder Co., 241 F.2d 715 *158 (6th Cir.1957). 9 In this action, whether the Court exercises pendent or original jurisdiction is not outcome determinative because plaintiff’s state claims lack merit as a matter of law. 2.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paperhandlers Union No. 1 v. U.S. Trucking Corp.
S.D.N.Y. · 1977 · confidence medium
L.R. § 7511(b)(1)(iii). 5 Since we have found that the proper law to follow is federal law, we will first discuss the question of finality of the original award under application of the federal statute. 6 As indicated above, national labor policy favors finality of arbitration awards. *474 Todd, supra. Toward that end, decisions of the arbitrator are considered final and binding both as to questions of fact and law unless the award has been obtained through corruption, fraud, or other misconduct. 7 American Machine & Foundry Co. v. United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Raymond H. GRANT, Appellant,
v.
ATLAS POWDER COMPANY, Appellee
12975.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Feb 19, 1957.
241 F.2d 715
Aubrey E. Graves, and Robert L. Den-man, Chattanooga, Tenn., for appellant., John C. Crawford. Jr., Knoxville, Tenn., and C. C. Ridenour, Chattanooga, Tenn., for appellee.
Simons, McAllister, Miller.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant brought this aation for damages against appellee for wrongful discharge, claiming breach by the ap-pellee of the terms of its collective bargaining agreement with the Union, of which appellant was a member. By amended complaint he alleged that he had complied with the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement respecting arbitration of grievances and filed as an exhibit a copy of the Arbitration Report. This Report contained the ruling of the arbitrator that appellant’s employment was properly terminated under the terms of the labor agreement and the Union’s request for his reinstatement without loss of seniority was denied.

The District Judge sustained appel-lee’s motion to dismiss the action. Appellant contends on this appeal that the provision in the collective bargaining contract providing for arbitration of grievances was invalid and did not prex-clude him from enforcing his claim in court.

Jurisdiction is claimed by reason of diversity of citizenship and the amount involved. However, the complaint does not state the citizenship of either the plaintiff or defendant. Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U.S. 322, 8 S.Ct. 1154, 32 L.Ed. 132; Jones v. Adams Express Co., C.C.E.D.Ky., 129 F. 618. It does not state where the contract of employment was made, or where the appellant was working, in what state the appellee was incorporated or engaged in business, or other facts furnishing a basis for determining the particular state, the law of which is to be applied. Since the action was filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee, we are assuming that the law of Tennessee is applicable.

[*716] Although an agreement to arbitrate a dispute may be invalid and an arbitrator’s award cannot be enforced .against one who has withdrawn, from the agreement while it is still executory, Key v. Norrod, 124 Tenn. 146, 136 S.W. 991, it is settled law that where the parties have executed the arbitration agreement by proceeding with the arbitration and obtaining an award,- the award is binding, subject to attack for fraud or some vitiating defect in the proceedings. No such attack is made here. Dougherty v. McWhorter, 15 Tenn. 239, 253, 257; Vaughn v. Herndon, 91 Tenn. 64, 17 S.W. 793; Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co., 264 U.S. 109, 120-121, 44 S.Ct. 274, 68 L.Ed. 582; Tejas Development Co. v. McGough Bros., 5 Cir., 165 F.2d 276, 279-280.

The judgment is affirmed.