under the following point that the “provocative problem” in determining whether the federal jurisdiction exists in such cases is “to what extent federal law must be at the forefront and should not be remote, collateral or peripheral” An arbitrator resolved a dispute between the parties in favour of the union and ruled that Exide Technologies had violated the collective agreement and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by unilaterally changing its family leave procedures and Medical. Act without negotiation with the union. Exide tried to clear the price, and the union tried to confirm it. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas upheld the arbitrator`s finding of a breach of the collective agreement, but concluded that he was not competent to verify the NRL`s finding. In Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 348 U.S. 437, 75 S.Ct. 489, 99 L.Ed. 510, the Supreme Court stated that the Supreme Court has not authorized an appeal by a union requesting a judgment on the unpaid wages earned against each worker under the collective agreement. In this case, the defendant employer naturally invokes this case. Such a task would involve the federal courts in the multiplication of problems that could not be solved without revealing that Congress never intended to address them. The application of a federal common law would inevitably lead to one of the following inconsistencies: (1) conflict in the interpretation of collective agreements by federal and regional courts; (2) the ousting of state law by federal law in state courts, not only in actions brought between unions and employers, but in all collective agreement actions; or (3) exclusion from state jurisdiction in these matters.

It would also be necessary to develop a federal code that regulates the interaction between worker`s rights and existing rights in the union. Moreover, if the general development of such a broad application of federal law were foreseen, the procedural objectives of Congress would have been achieved without the need for a particular judicial status. It would be a matter of federal rights and, under the provisions of the U.S. If .C and federal rule 17 (b), the complaint could be brought by or against the union as an entity in a district court. The only effect of page 301 would then be to waive the subject matter of the dispute and adopt other minor procedural rules. The management of the collective agreement is his life and its importance. The adaptation and resolution of complaints, the development of an administrative practice in relation to the collective agreement give it strength and authority.