Inside The High Court's Take On Interpreting CBAs

By Steven Swirsky, Christina Rentz and Stuart Gerson (March 8, 2018, 2:23 PM EST) -- Resolving a split in the circuits, the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided the case of CNH Industrial v. Reese definitively rejecting what had come to be known as the Yard-Man standard, and reaffirming that collective bargaining agreements must be interpreted according to ordinary contract principles. Although the Supreme Court has long held that ordinary cannons of contract construction apply to collective bargaining agreements, some federal courts developed a specialized set of assumptions, which came to be referred to as the Yard-Man inferences, which allowed them to read beyond the actual contract terms, to reach what in some cases have been more employee-friendly results when ordinary interpretation principles would not have allowed such a result.[1]...

Law360 is on it, so you are, too.

A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.


A Law360 subscription includes features such as

  • Daily newsletters
  • Expert analysis
  • Mobile app
  • Advanced search
  • Judge information
  • Real-time alerts
  • 450K+ searchable archived articles

And more!

Experience Law360 today with a free 7-day trial.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Click here to login

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!