United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior and Gulf Navigation Company, No. 443

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtFRANKFURTER; BLACK; WHITTAKER
Citation4 L.Ed.2d 1409,363 U.S. 574,80 S.Ct. 1347
Docket NumberNo. 443
Decision Date20 June 1960
PartiesUNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. WARRIOR AND GULF NAVIGATION COMPANY

363 U.S. 574
80 S.Ct. 1347
4 L.Ed.2d 1409
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner,

v.

WARRIOR AND GULF NAVIGATION COMPANY.

No. 443.
Argued April 27, 1960.
Decided June 20, 1960.

Page 575

Mr. David E. Feller, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Samuel Lang, New Orleans, La., for respondent.

Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, announced by Mr. Justice BRENNAN.

Respondent transports steel and steel products by barge and maintains a terminal at Chickasaw, Alabama, where it performs maintenance and repair work on its barges. The employees at that terminal constitute a bargaining unit covered by a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by petitioner union. Respondent between 1956 and 1958 laid off some employees, reducing the bargaining unit from 42 to 23 men. This reduction was due in part to respondent contracting maintenance work, previously done by its employees, to other companies. The latter used respondent's supervisors to lay out the work and hired some of the laid-off employees of respondent (at reduced wages). Some were in fact assigned to work on respondent's barges. A number of employees signed a grievance which petitioner presented to respondent, the grievance reading:

'We are hereby protesting the Company's actions, of arbitrarily and unreasonably contracting out work to other concerns, that could and previously has been performed by Company employees.

'This practice becomes unreasonable, unjust and discriminatory in lieu (sic) of the fact that at present

Page 576

there are a number of employees that have been laid off for about 1 and 1/2 years or more for allegedly lack of work.

'Confronted with these facts we charge that the Company is in violation of the contract by inducing a partial lock-out, of a number of the employees who would otherwise be working were it not for this unfair practice.'

The collective agreement had both a 'no strike' and a 'no lockout' provision. It also had a grievance procedure which provided in relevant part as follows:

'Issues which conflict with any Federal statute in its application as established by Court procedure or matters which are strictly a function of management shall not be subject to arbitration under this section.

'Should differences arise between the Company and the Union or its members employed by the Company as to the meaning and application of the provisions of this Agreement, or should any local trouble of any kind arise, there shall be no suspension of work on account of such differences but an earnest effort shall be made to settle such differences immediately in the following manner:

'A. For Maintenance Employees:

'First, between the aggrieved employees, and the Foreman involved;

'Second, between a member or members of the Grievance Committee designated by the Union, and the Foreman and Master Mechanic.

'Fifth, if agreement has not been reached the matter shall be referred to an impartial umpire for decision. The parties shall meet to decide on an umpire acceptable to both. If no agreement on selection of an umpire is reached, the parties shall jointly peti-

Page 577

tion the United States Conciliation Service for suggestion of a list of umpires from which selection shall be made. The decision of the umpire will be final.'

Settlement of this grievance was not had and respondent refused arbitration. This suit was then commenced by the union to compel it.1

The District Court granted respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint. 168 F.Supp. 702. It held after hearing evidence, much of which went to the merits of the grievance, that the agreement did not 'confide in an arbitrator the right to review the defendant's business judgment in contracting out work.' Id., at page 705. It further held that 'the contracting out of repair and maintenance work, as well as construction work, is strictly a function of management not limited in any respect by the labor agreement involved here.' Ibid. The Court of Appeals affirmed by a divided vote, 269 F.2d 633, 635, the majority holding that the collective agreement had withdrawn from the grievance procedure 'matters which are strictly a function of management' and that contracting out fell in that exception. The case is here on a writ of certiorari. 361 U.S. 912, 80 S.Ct. 255, 4 L.Ed.2d 183.

We held in Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 912, 923, 1 L.Ed.2d 972, that a grievance arbitration provision in a collective agreement could be enforced by reason of § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act2 and that the policy to be applied in enforcing this type of arbitration

Page 578

was that reflected in our national labor laws. Id., 353 U.S. at pages 456—457, 77 S.Ct. at page 917—918. The present federal policy is to promote industrial stabilization through the collective bargaining agreement. 3 Id., 353 U.S. at pages 453—454, 77 S.Ct. at page 916. A major factor in achieving industrial peace is the inclusion of a provision for arbitration of grievances in the collective bargaining agreement.4

Thus the run of arbitration cases, illustrated by Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 74 S.Ct. 182, 98 L.Ed. 168 becomes irrelevant to our problem. There the choice is between the adjudication of cases or controversies in courts with established procedures or even special statutory safeguards on the one hand and the settlement of them in the more informal arbitration tribunal on the other. In the commercial case, arbitration is the substitute for litigation. Here arbitration is the substitute for industrial strife. Since arbitration of labor disputes has quite different functions from arbitration under an ordinary commercial agreement, the hostility evinced by courts toward arbitration of commercial agreements has no place here. For arbitration of labor disputes under collective bargaining agreements is part and parcel of the collective bargaining process itself.

The collective bargaining agreement states the rights and duties of the parties. It is more than a contract; it is a generalized code to govern a myriad of cases which the draftsmen cannot wholly anticipate. See Shulman, Reason, Contract, and Law in Labor Relations, 68 Harv.L.

Page 579

Rev. 999, 1004—1005. The collective agreement covers the whole employment relationship.5 It calls into being a new common law—the common law of a particular industry or of a particular plant. As one observer has put it:6

'* * * (I)t is not unqualifiedly true that a collective-bargaining agreement is simply a document by which the union and employees have imposed upon management limited, express restrictions of its otherwise absolute right to manage the enterprise, so that an employee's claim must fail unless he can point to a specific contract provision upon which the claim is founded,. There are too many people, too many problems, too many unforeseeable contingencies to make the words of the contract the exclusive source of rights and duties. One cannot reduce all the rules governing a community like an industrial plant to fifteen or even fifty pages. Within the sphere of collective bargaining, the institutional characteristics

Page 580

and the governmental nature of the collective-bargaining process demand a common law of the shop which implements and furnishes the context of the agreement. We must assume that intelligent negotiators acknowledged so plain a need unless they stated a contrary rule in plain words.'

A collective bargaining agreement is an effort to erect a system of industrial self-government. When most parties enter into contractual relationship they do so voluntarily, in the sense that there is no real compulsion to deal with one another, as opposed to dealing with other parties. This is not true of the labor agreement. The choice is generally not between entering or refusing to enter into a relationship, for that in all probability pre-exists the negotiations. Rather it is between having that relationship governed by an agreed-upon rule of law or leaving each and every matter subject to a temporary resolution dependent solely upon the relative strength, at any given moment, of the contending forces. The mature labor agreement may attempt to regulate all aspects of the complicated relationship, from the most crucial to the most minute over an extended period of time. Because of the compulsion to reach agreement and the breadth of the matters covered, as well as the need for a fairly concise and readable instrument, the product of negotiations (the written document) is, in the words of the late Dean Shulman, 'a compilation of diverse provisions: some provide objective criteria almost automatically applicable; some provide more or less specific standards which require reason and judgment in their application; and some do little more than leave problems to future consideration with an expression of hope and good faith.' Shulman, supra, at 1005. Gaps may be left to be filled in by reference to the practices of the particular industry and of the various shops covered by the agreement. Many of the specific prac-

Page 581

tices which underlie the agreement may be unknown, except in hazy form, even to the negotiators. Courts and arbitration in the context of most commercial contracts are resorted to because there has been a breakdown in the working relationship of the parties; such resort is the unwanted exception. But the grievance machinery under a collective bargaining agreement is at the very heart of the system of industrial self-government. Arbitration is the means of solving the unforeseeable by molding a system of private law for all the problems which may arise and to provide for their solution in a way which will generally accord with the variant needs and desires of the parties. The processing of disputes through the grievance machinery is actually a vehicle by which meaning and content are given to the collective bargaining agreement.

Apart from matters that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5392 practice notes
  • Torrence v. Murphy, Civ. A. No. J91-0105(W).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Mississippi
    • February 23, 1993
    ...be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit. Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1353, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960); Neal v. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., supra, at page 37; Matter of Talbott Big Foot, Inc., 887 ......
  • Service Employees International Union v. County of Napa, AFL-CI
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 19, 1979
    ...the issue is Ordinarily for the court, and not the arbitrator. (Accord Code Civ.Proc., § 1281.2; Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Co. (1960) 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d The Union and our dissenting colleague also concede that the Agreement contains No "express language directl......
  • Southern Systems, Inc. v. Torrid Oven Ltd., No. 99-2089-DV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Western District of Tennessee
    • July 25, 2000
    ...arbitration clause clearly does not cover the dispute at issue. See, e.g., United Steel-workers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960); see also AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am. et. al., 475 U.S. 643, 106 S.Ct. 1......
  • Bruno v. United Steelworkers of America, No. 91-CV-287.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • January 29, 1992
    ...v. American Manufacturing Co., 363 U.S. 564, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1960); United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960); and United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 7......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5399 cases
  • Torrence v. Murphy, Civ. A. No. J91-0105(W).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Mississippi
    • February 23, 1993
    ...be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to so submit. Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 1353, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960); Neal v. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc., supra, at page 37; Matter of Talbott Big Foot, Inc., 887 ......
  • Service Employees International Union v. County of Napa, AFL-CI
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 19, 1979
    ...the issue is Ordinarily for the court, and not the arbitrator. (Accord Code Civ.Proc., § 1281.2; Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Co. (1960) 363 U.S. 574, 582, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d The Union and our dissenting colleague also concede that the Agreement contains No "express language directl......
  • Southern Systems, Inc. v. Torrid Oven Ltd., No. 99-2089-DV.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Western District of Tennessee
    • July 25, 2000
    ...arbitration clause clearly does not cover the dispute at issue. See, e.g., United Steel-workers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960); see also AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am. et. al., 475 U.S. 643, 106 S.Ct. 1......
  • Bruno v. United Steelworkers of America, No. 91-CV-287.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Ohio
    • January 29, 1992
    ...v. American Manufacturing Co., 363 U.S. 564, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1960); United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960); and United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 7......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES, NON-SIGNATORIES, AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 Nbr. 1, November 2021
    • November 1, 2021
    ...to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit." (quoting United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582 (10) This is not to state that one can never be bound to an agreement that one does not sign. We discuss several traditional doctrines that ......
  • STANDARDIZED (COVID) TESTING? VACCINE MANDATES AND TEACHERS' UNIONS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS IN URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 49 Nbr. 4, May 2022
    • May 1, 2022
    ...United Steelworkers v. Enter. Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960); United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (137.) See e.g., Paramount Unified Sch. Dist. v. Tchrs. Ass'n of Paramount, CTA/NEA, 32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 311, 315 (Ct. App. 1994); Scotch Plains-Fanw......
  • Capitalist Development, Labor Law, and the New Working Class.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 Nbr. 6, April 2022
    • April 1, 2022
    ...relations). (110.) United Steelworkers v. Am. Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564 (1960); United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960); United Steelworkers v. Enter. Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960). While all these cases involved the steelworkers union, none a......

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