Carlisle Power Trans. Products v. United Steel, etc., No. 12-1986 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThis appeal stemmed from a dispute between the Union and Carlisle over the arbitrability of a grievance concerning disability benefits. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Carlisle and denied the Union's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that Carlisle's claim for declaratory judgment was barred by the doctrine of res judicata where there was no basis for the district court to conclude that the Union acquiesced in the splitting of Carlisle's claims. Therefore, the Union did not waive its right to rely on the doctrine of res judicata. Accordingly, the court vacated the order and remanded with directions to dismiss Carlisle's action
Court Description: Civil case - Labor law. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Carlisle Power Transmission Prods. v. United Steelworkers, 326 F. App'x (8th Cir. 2009). There was no basis for finding the Union acquiesced in the splitting of Carlyle's claims, and the district court erred in determining that the Union had waived its right to invoke the doctrine of res judicata; the district court's order granting summary judgment to Carlisle is vacated and the court is ordered to dismiss Carlisle's complaint.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.