# International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement Workers & Its Locals 656 & 985 v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · March 11, 1983 · 701 F.2d 1181

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8916556

## Case

- **Full name:** INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA AND ITS LOCALS 656 AND 985 v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 11, 1983
- **Citations:** 701 F.2d 1181; 4 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1105; 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 29735
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Neese
- **Judges:** Engel, Jones, Neese
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8916556

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing the policy considerations of arbitral immunity

## Opinion text

NEESE, Senior District Judge,
concurring.
I agree that ERISA did not require Arbitrator Bowles to be bonded; that the appellants waived their right to assert that H 2 of the proposal of the Union trustees contravened the basic document of the Retirement Plan implicated; and that the judgment of the District Court, enforcing the arbitration-award, should be affirmed. However, I disassociate myself with parts of the reasoning expressed in Part II of the opinion of the majority of the Court:
As I view it, the reason ERISA did not require a bond of the Arbitrator was that he not performing any act constituting the “handling” of the Plan’s funds or property; so, I would adjudicate the issue of bonding solely and alone upon that ground. Accordingly, I would omit any discussion of the doctrine of arbitral immunity from civil liability which, it seems to me in this present context is redundant.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8916556. Public record. Not legal advice.