The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Steelworkers Trilogy: Some Reflections on Judicial Review of Labor Arbitration Decisions - Will Gold Turn to Rust?

Abstract

In 1960, in the landmark Steelworkers Trilogy, the United States Supreme Court enthusiastically endorsed arbitration of grievances in private sector labor management relations. As a means of efficient and effective dispute resolution, labor arbitration was perceived as far superior to external litigation in court; labor arbitration was, and is, quicker and less expensive than most litigation. Over the course of the past half-century, the Supreme Court has reiterated and reaffirmed the classic benchmark principles of judicial deference to labor arbitration that the Court unequivocally elucidated in the Trilogy. With increasing frequency, however, some activist judges on the lower federal courts are seemingly predisposed to vacate labor arbitration decisions simply because the judge does not like the particular substantive result of the particular labor arbitration decision. This propensity of some of the lower federal courts to set aside labor arbitration decisions reached its zenith (or nadir, depending on one’s perspective) in the Sixth Circuit in 2006. This essay examines the Sixth Circuit experience with some particularity, analyzing what that Circuit’s pre and post 2006 practical experience and jurisprudence may auger for the future of labor arbitration, and of Alternative Dispute Resolution more broadly, in this 50th anniversary year of the Steelworkers Trilogy.