Document: 376 U.S. 247 84 S.Ct. 773 11 L.Ed.2d 680 LOCAL UNION NO. 721, UNITED PACKINGHOUSE, FOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Petitioner,v.NEEDHAM PACKING CO., d/b/a Sioux City Dressed Beef. No. 102. Argued Feb. 20, 1964. Decided March 9, Richard F. Watt, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Alfred L. Scanlan, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case, which was brought here from Supreme Court Iowa, 374 826, 83 1867, 10 1050, presents a problem concerning relationship between an arbitration clause and no-strike in collective bargaining agreement. 2 Although this case comes to us on pleadings some disputed questions fact are still be resolved, we accept as true following facts purposes our decision. The petitioner, Local Union United Packinghouse, Food Allied Workers, respondent, Needham Packing Co., had agreement included provisions both kinds, set out hereafter. On May 11, 1961, discharged Anton Stamoulis, employee represented by union. In response, same day about 190 other employees left work. During next few days advised return work, stating that if they did not their employment would regarded terminated discharge Stamoulis treated under grievance procedures 3 July 5, union presented written grievances behalf employees, asserting been 'improperly discharged' requesting reinstatement with full seniority rights pay lost time. By letter dated refused process grievances. stated its members conduct 'repudiated labor agreement' company. addition, it have further dealings recognize majority representative employees. 4 suit § 301(a) Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185(a), compel two followed. alleged defense struck breach having obligations filed counterclaim, alleging damaged amount $150,000 union's clause. denied such breach. At close pleadings, accordance Iowa procedure, moved ruling points law final order denying petition arbitration.1 Deciding solely basis matters raised there no dispute, trial court ruled Needham's favor issued against obtained appeal. affirmed holding below 'the waived right arbitrate walkout.' 254 882, 887, 119 N.W.2d 141, 143.2 5 present posture must answer question whether acts relieved contractual obligation almost entirely itself. We think plain that, seen perspective, judgment reversed. 6 controlling comprehensive terms. nostrike provides: 7 'It is agreed during period shall engage call or sanction any slow down, work stoppage strike * *.' 8 include typical resolution dispute preliminary arbitration. They then provide: 9 'In event arise Company reference proper interpretation application contract cannot settled mutual parties, referred board upon request Union.' It evident above well agreement3 were intended largely, wholly, benefit A state exercising concurrent jurisdiction over suits applies federal substantive law. Charles Dowd Box Inc., v. Courtney, 368 502, 82 519, 483. controls disposition Drake Bakeries Inc. 50, American Bakery & Confectionery Workers International, AFL— CIO, 370 254, 1346, 474. employer action damages 301(a), 'instigated encouraged report work,' violation Id., at 256 U.S., 1348 S.Ct., contained broad covering 'all complaints, disputes arising (the parties) involving matter covered act relation parties hereto, directly indirectly.' 257 12 argued promise so basic bargain completely inconsistent provision employer's duty excused argument, essentially here, rejected grounds fully applicable case. relied part apparent intention terminate altogether, more central conclusion view 'inflexible rule rigidly linking clauses every situation.' 261 1351 (Footnote omitted.) said: 13 '* (U)nder contract, agreeing all claims without excluding where arbitrable matter, negatived condition absence strikes. thus cut ground argument strike, automatically regardless circumstances, repudiation company arbitrating, theories waiver, estoppel, otherwise. Arbitration provisions, themselves repudiated, meant survive breaches many contexts, even total breach; determining one party has repudiated his circumstances claimed critically important. denies respect arbitrate, bound January asserts itself ignored adjustment scheduling holiday work.' 262—263 (Footnotes 14 Continuance is, anything, clearer than Bakeries, issues within scope There claim wrongful arbitrate.4 Nothing indicates except 'interpretation application' involves follows That does carry implication Bakeries. 15 require submit arbitration, required do indeed appears confine union, indicate different result. subject counterclaim courts; nothing said precludes prosecuting recovering damages.5 way convert into one.6 16 Nor believe can distinguished involved only 'one-day strike,' id., 265 1353 Whether fundamental long- lasting change prior demand circumstance which, alone among others, release need decide, since undeveloped record before reveals circumstance. Compare supra, passage time resulting refusal cannot, course, releasing arbitrate. 17 allegations breached clause, supported undisputed wrongfully discharged. basis, reverse remand proceedings. ordered. 18 Reversed remanded. Rule 105 Rules Civil Procedure, 58 I.C.A. 'The may discretion, either party, made after joined trial, separately hear determine point pleading goes whole material enter appropriate remaining issues, adjudicating determined, questioned dispose. If dispose deemed interlocutory appeal.' provides entered 'deemed appeal,' 'final dispose.' See note 1. Accordingly, properly invoked. For example, 'of occurrence giving rise grievance' knowledge, should knowledge effect, 8(a) agreement, provided could 'for just cause.' Here, Atkinson Sinclair Refining 238, 1318, 462, find unnecessary decide what any, factual legal determinations arbitrator related courts. 245, 1323 462. similarly limited grievances, relevance submitte

Category: 6