Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight: Another Step in the Seemingly Inexorable March Toward Converting Federal Judges (and Juries) Into Labor Arbitrators of Last Resort

This Article, directed to the courts, and especially to the federal bench, carries this message: you are in danger of converting the federal judiciary into a panel of labor arbitrators. The advance sheets of the federal courts are beginning to read like Labor Arbitration Reports. The kinds of disputes that in the past were resolved by private arbitration are beginning to appear at an increasing rate on the dockets of the federal courts: Did the company have just cause when it discharged the grievants for allegedly falsifying their expense accounts? Did the company violate the agreement with the union when it assigned the grievants to night work? Was the employer justified in discharging the grievant for allegedly striking her superior? Did the grievant place the meat on the loading dock, intending it to be picked up by accomplices, and did that constitute grounds for discharge? Was the company justified in discharging the grievant for possessing a bandsaw stolen from the company? Was the grievant, who signed a confession admitting his theft, discharged for cause? Should the company have given credit to the grievant for seniority earned while working in South America? Was the grievant, a truck driver who admittedly sought pay for time not worked, guilty of theft of company time, and thus properly discharged? Was the grievant discharged for cause after he struck a bridge with his truck? Was the grievant\u27s alleged intoxication sufficient cause for his discharge? Did past practice justify paying the grievant a lower rate of pay for piloting a smaller boat? Is alcoholism an illness, entitling the grievant to sick leave under the contract? Was the grievant, who had only one good eye, properly laid off when his job was changed to require him to drive? Was the grievant\u27s job classification proper? Did the company assign the correct seniority date to the grievant? Was the grievant\u27s explanation of why he allowed an unauthorized female passenger on a charter bus believable, or was he discharged for cause? Should the grievant, who while off duty and away from the factory assaulted his foreman, be reinstated with back pay, or was discharge an appropriate penalty? These cases, taken from the reports of the federal courts, involve issues no different from those in the hundreds of reported cases in the CCH Labor Arbitration Awards or in the BNA Labor Arbitration Reports, not to mention the thousands of arbitration decisions that go unreported. If the courts would prefer to handle more of these cases-and there are more where these came from, namely from the daily frictions of the working place-all they need do is give a broad reading to Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight

Uniformity in State Inheritance Laws: How UPC Article II Has Fared in Nine Enactments

The Uniform Probate Code was drafted to facilitate modernization, simplification, and uniformity of state inheritance laws. Since its approval by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and by the American Bar Association in August 1969, the Code has been enacted in various forms by 11 states. In this Article, the Authors analyze significant deviations from the recommended version of article II in the first nine enactments of the UPC. The Authors argue that all but exceptionally meritorious changes in enacted versions of the UPC should give way to the goal of state uniformity in inheritance laws, and find the majority of the changes to be unjustifiable. In evaluating the merits of the changes, the authors consider UPC policies behind individual sections of the Code as well as state reasons for deviations

The Uniform Probate Code: Article III Analyzed in Relation to Changes in the First Nine Enactments

The eleven pioneer states that have adopted the Uniform Probate Code have amended its provisions in various ways. This Article reviews the changes made in article III, the central procedural section of the Code. The Authors analyze the import of these amendments, considering the interplay between the carefully drafted provisions of the Code and its policy of uniformly minimizing the iudicial intervention and expense involved in the administration of estates. The Authors\u27 analysis of these first enactments should prove helpful in those states currently considering adoption of the Uniform Probate Code as well as to lawyers and the courts in pioneer states

Flexibility, The Uniform Probate Code\u27s Procedural Article and Some Comparisons with Kentucky Statutes

The present state of the law in America governing the succession to decedents\u27 estates is badly in need of reform. There is a growing awareness of the inadequacy of present probate procedure even among ordinary citizens unschooled in the law. The public awareness of the problems of probate and its demand for reform are apparent from the spate of articles and books which have dealt with probate pains and methods for avoiding them. This demand and the efforts of reform-minded scholars have culminated in a proposed solution--the Uniform Probate Code (UPC). This Author argues that the probate scheme of the UPC (at least as to the procedural article) is a major improvement in this area and should be adopted by the Kentucky legislature