390 U.S. 557 (1968), 445, Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, International

Docket Nº:No. 445
Citation:390 U.S. 557, 88 S.Ct. 1235, 20 L.Ed.2d 126
Party Name:Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, International
Case Date:April 08, 1968
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 557

390 U.S. 557 (1968)

88 S.Ct. 1235, 20 L.Ed.2d 126

Avco Corp.

v.

Aero Lodge No. 735, International

No. 445

United States Supreme Court

April 8, 1968

Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers

Argued March 11, 1968

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Petitioner, employer, brought suit in a Tennessee court to enjoin respondent union and its members from striking in violation of a "no-strike" clause in the collective bargaining agreement. The state court issued an ex parte injunction. Respondents moved in Federal District Court for removal of the case, and dissolution of the injunction. The District Court ruled that the action was within its original jurisdiction, denied a motion to remand to the state court, and dissolved the injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

1. Since this action is based on § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, it is controlled by federal substantive law, even though brought in a state court, and removal is but one aspect of the "primacy of the federal judiciary in deciding questions of federal law." P. 560.

2. This suit clearly arises under the "laws of the United States," within the meaning of the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), and is within the "original jurisdiction" of the District Court under §§ 1441(a) and (b). P. 560.

3. The nature of the relief available after jurisdiction attaches is different from the question whether the court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy. P. 561.

376 F.2d 337, affirmed.

Page 558

DOUGLAS, J., lead opinion

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner filed a suit in a state court in Tennessee to enjoin respondent union and its members and associates from striking at petitioner's plant. The heart of the complaint was a "no-strike" clause in the collective bargaining agreement by which "grievances" were to be settled amicably or by binding arbitration. The eligibility of employees for promotion engendered disputes -- allegedly subject to the grievance procedure -- which, so far as appears, involved no violence or trespass, but which resulted in work stoppages and a walkout by employees. The state court issued an ex parte injunction.

Respondents then moved in the Federal District Court for removal of the case.1 A motion to remand to the

Page 559

state court was made and denied, the District Court ruling that the action was within its original jurisdiction. The District Court granted respondents' motion to dissolve the injunction issued by the Tennessee court. The Court of Appeals [88 S.Ct. 1237] affirmed. 376 F.2d 337. We granted the petition for certiorari (389 U.S. 819) because of an apparent conflict between the decision below and American Dredging Co. v. Local 25, 338 F.2d 837, from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The starting point is § 301 of the Labor...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP