Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama v. United Textile Workers of America Local 1802 General Electric Company v. Local 205, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America

Citation1 L.Ed.2d 972,77 S.Ct. 923,353 U.S. 448
Decision Date03 June 1957
Docket NumberNos. 211,GOODALL-SANFOR,I,262 and 276,s. 211
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner-union entered into a collective bargaining agreement in 1953 with respondent-employer, the agreement to run one year and from year to year thereafter, unless terminated on specified notices. The agreement provided that there would be no strikes or work stoppages and that grievances would be handled pursuant to a specified procedure. The last step in the grievance procedure—a step that could be taken by either party—was arbitration.

This controversy involves several grievances that concern work loads and work assignments. The grievances were processed through the various steps in the grievance procedure and were finally denied by the employer. The union requested arbitration, and the employer refused. Thereupon the union brought this suit in the District Court to compel arbitration.

The District Court concluded that it had jurisdiction and ordered the employer to comply with the grievance arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. The Court of Appeals reversed by a divided vote. 230 F.2d 81. It held that, although the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the court had no authority founded either in federal or state law to grant the relief. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted because of the importance of the problem and the contrariety of views in the courts. 352 U.S. 821, 77 S.Ct. 54, 1 L.Ed.2d 46.

The starting point of our inquiry is § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U.S.C. § 185, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185, which provides:

'(a) Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.

'(b) Any labor organization which represents employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter and any employer whose activities affect commerce as defined in this chapter shall be bound by the acts of its agents. Any such labor organization may sue or be sued as an entity and in behalf of the employees whom it represents in the courts of the United States. Any money judgment against a labor organization in a district court of the United States shall be enforceable only against the organization as an entity and against its assets, and shall not be enforceable against any individual member or his assets.'

There has been considerable litigation involving § 301 and courts have construed it differently. There is one view that § 301(a) merely gives federal district courts jurisdiction in controversies that involve labor organizations in industries affecting commerce, without regard to diversity of citizenship or the amount in controversy.1 Under that view § 301(a) would not be the source of substantive law; it would neither supply federal law to resolve these controversies nor turn the federal judges to state law for answers to the questions. Other courts—the overwhelming number of them—hold that § 301(a) is more than jurisdictional2—that it authorizes federal courts to fashion a body of federal law for the enforcement of these collective bargaining agreements and includes within that federal law specific performance of promises to arbitrate grievances under collective bargaining agreements. Perhaps the leading decision representing that point of view is the one rendered by Judge Wyzanski in Textile Workers Union of America (C.I.O.) v. American Thread Co., D.C., 113 F.Supp. 137. That is our construction of § 301(a), which means that the agreement to arbitrate grievance disputes, contained in this collective bargaining agreement, should be specifically enforced.

From the face of the Act it is apparent that § 301(a) and § 301(b) supplement one another. Section 301(b) makes it possible for a labor organization, representing employees in an industry affecting commerce, to sue and be sued as an entity in the federal courts. Section 301(b) in other words provides the procedural remedy lacking at common law. Section 301(a) certainly does something more than that. Plainly, it supplies the basis upon which the federal district courts may take jurisdiction and apply the procedural rule of § 301(b). The question is whether § 301(a) is more than jurisdictional.

The legislative history of § 301 is somewhat cloudy and confusing. But there are a few shafts of light that illuminate our problem.

The bills, as they passed the House and the Senate, contained provisions which would have made the failure to abide by an agreement to arbitrate an unfair labor practice. S.Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 20—21, 23; H.R.Rep. No. 245, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 21.3 This feature of the law was dropped in Conference. As the Conference Report stated, 'Once parties have made a collective bargaining contract, the enforcement of that contract should be left to the usual processes of the law and not to the National Labor Relations Board.' H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 42.

Both the Senate and the House took pains to provide for 'the usual processes of the law' by provisions which were the substantial equivalent of § 301(a) in its present form. Both the Senate Report and the House Report indicate a primary concern that unions as well as employees should be bound to collective bargaining contracts. But there was also a broader concern—a concern with a procedure for making such agreements enforceable in the courts by either party. At one point the Senate Report, supra, p. 15, states, 'We feel that the aggrieved party should also have a right of action in the Federal courts. Such a policy is completely in accord with the purpose of the Wagner Act which the Supreme Court declared was 'to compel employers to bargain collectively with their employees to the end that an employment contract, binding on both parties, should be made * * *."

Congress was also interested in promoting collective bargaining that ended with agreements not to strike.4 The Senate Report, supra, p. 16 states:

'If unions can break agreements with relative impunity, then such agreements do not tend to stabilize industrial relations. The execution of an agreement does not by itself promote industrial peace. The chief advantage which an employer can reasonably expect from a collective labor agreement is assurance of uninterrupted operation during the term of the agreement. Without some effective method of assuring freedom from economic warfare for the term of the agreement, there is little reason why an employer would desire to sign such a contract.

'Consequently, to encourage the making of agreements and to promote industrial peace through faithful performance by the parties, collective agreements affecting interstate commerce should be enforceable in the Federal courts. Our amendment would provide for suits by unions as legal entities and against unions as legal entities in the Federal courts in disputes affecting commerce.'

Thus collective bargaining contracts were made 'equally binding and enforceable on both parties.' Id., p. 15. As stated in the House Report, supra, p. 6, the new provision 'makes labor organizations equally responsible with employers for contract violations and provides for suit by either against the other in the United States district courts.' To repeat, the Senate Report, supra, p. 17, summed up the philosophy of § 301 as follows: 'Statutory recognition of the collective agreement as a valid, binding, and enforceable contract is a logical and necessary step. It will promote a higher degree of responsibility upon the parties to such agreements, and will thereby promote industrial peace.'

Plainly the agreement to arbitrate grievance disputes is the quid pro quo for an agreement not to strike. Viewed in this light, the legislation does more than confer jurisdiction in the federal courts over labor organizations. It expresses a federal policy that federal courts should enforce these agreements on behalf of or against labor oganizations and that industrial peace can be best obtained only in that way.

To be sure, there is a great medley of ideas reflected in the hearings, reports, and debates on this Act. Yet, to repeat, the entire tenor of the history indicates that the agreement to arbitrate grievance disputes was considered as quid pro quo of a no-strike agreement. And when in the House the debate narrowed to the question whether § 301 was more than jurisdictional, it became abundantly clear that the purpose of the section was to provide the necessary legal remedies. Section 302 of the House bill,5 the substantial equivalent of the present § 301, was being described by Mr. Hartley, the sponsor of the bill in the House:

'Mr. Barden. Mr. Chairman, I take this time for the purpose of asking the Chairman a question, and in asking the question I want it understood that it is intended to make a part of the record that may hereafter be referred to as history of the legislation.

'It is my understanding that section 302, the section dealing with equal responsibility under collective bargaining contracts in strike actions and proceedings in district courts contemplates not only the ordinary lawsuits for damages but also such other remedial proceedings, both legal and equitable, as might...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2285 cases
  • Graham v. Scissor-Tail, SCISSOR-TAIL
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 5 Marzo 1980
    ...courts and to accept compulsory arbitration as a substitute. This the union possessed authority to do. (Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills (1957) 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 912, 1 L.Ed.2d 972; United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Co. (1960) 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409.) But the e......
  • Greenfield v. Schmidt Baking Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 19 Marzo 1997
    ......v. . SCHMIDT BAKING COMPANY, INC., John F. Morrison and Dennis . Swartz, ... Greenfield was also a member of Local No. 68, Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International Union, A.F.L.-C.I.O., C.L.C. [hereinafter Union]. 1 ... be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, ... Supreme Court of the United States, in Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, concluded that .... 2. General Considerations .         We agree with ......
  • De Arroyo v. Sindicato de Trabajadores Packing., AFL-CIO, No. 7456-7458.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • 17 Abril 1970
    ...abuses sought to be eliminated by the Norris-LaGuardia Act. See section 2, 29 U.S.C. § 102; Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 458, 77 S.Ct. 912, 1 L.Ed.2d 972 (1957). We therefore hold that the remedy of reinstatement in a § 301 suit is not barred by section 4......
  • In re White Farm Equipment Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 20 Septiembre 1984
    ...of course, is the paradigmatic federal statute under which courts have fashioned federal common law. Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 912, 1 L.Ed.2d 972 (1957); see P. Bator, D. Shapiro, P. Mishkin & H. Wechsler, Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the F......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 books & journal articles
  • The curious history of the Alien Tort Statute.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 89 No. 4, March - March 2014
    • 1 Marzo 2014
    ...and Context, 42 Va. J. Int'l L. 687 (2002); Vazquez, supra note 133, at 1505-07. (156) Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills of Ala., 353 U.S. 448, 456-57 (157) Spejulian Ku & John Yoo, Beyond Formalism in Foreign Affairs: A Functional Approach to the Alien Tort Statute, 2004 Sup. Ct. ......
  • Arbitral Autonomy
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 74-1, October 2013
    • 1 Octubre 2013
    ...faces distortion in take-it-or-leave-it bargains under which one party 57. Textile Workers Union of Am. v. Lincoln Mills of Ala., 353 U.S. 448, 451 (1957) (holding that the agreement to arbitrate grievance disputes, contained in a collective bargaining agreement, should be specifically enfo......
  • The circuitous journey to the patients' bill of rights: winners and losers.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 65 No. 1, September 2001
    • 22 Septiembre 2001
    ...as federal law and will not be an independent source of private rights") (quoting Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 456-457 (1957)). See also Rice v. Panchal, 65 F.3d 637, 640 (7th Cir. 1995) (distinguishing complete preemption from conflict (196) See Rice, 65......
  • Removal jurisdiction and the All Writs Act.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 148 No. 2, December 1999
    • 1 Diciembre 1999
    ...it is in the power of Congress to give the [c]ircuit [c]ourts jurisdiction of that cause"). Cf. Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 471 (1957) (Frankfurter, J, dissenting) (commenting on the scope of federal jurisdiction observed in Osborn and stating that federal question......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT