Year: 1971
Type: article
Abstract: This idea is developed in Killingsworth and Wallen, "Constraint and Variety in Arbitration Systems", from Labour Arbitration: Perspectives and Problems (1964) at 56. "1 Consider the conflicting utterances in the following Canadian and United States decisions: United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior and Gulf Navigation Co., (1960) 363 U.S. 574, 581-2; United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp., (1960) 363 U.S. 593, 597; R. v. Arthurs, Exp.Port Arthur Shipbuilding (1967), 2 O.R. 45, 53.This difference of opinion is not confined to judicial circles.See Fuller, "Collective Bargaining and the Arbitrator" from Collective Bargaining and the Arbitrator's Role (1962), 8; Taylor, "Effectuating the Labor Contract Through Arbitration," from The Profession of Labor Arbitration (1957), 20; Shulman, Reason, Contract and Law in Labor Relations (1955), 68 Harv.L Rev. 999 and Jones, supra note 6.12 My perception of legal reasoning and institutional limitations has been influenced by Professor Paul C. Weiler.The models developed borrow heavily from his work in legal reasoning in general and labour arbitration in particular.See also Professor Fuller's writing and Hart and Sacks, The Legal Process (Tentative ed.) (1958).See Weiler, Two Models of Judicial Decision-Making, (1968), 46 Can.Bar.Rev. 406, Weiler, Legal Values and Judicial Decision-Making, (1970), 48 Can.Bar.Rev. 1; Weiler, The Role of the Labour Arbitrator: Alternative Versions (1969), 19 U of T. L. 16; Weiler, "Labour Arbitration and Industrial Change," Task Force on Labour Relations, Study No. 6 (1969).The following articles represent the writings, in addition to the above, upon which the models of this first section draw.
Source: Osgoode Hall law journal
Author: George W. Adams
Language: English
Topic: Legal and Labor Studies
Subfield: Industrial relations
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W2584582792