Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/360/63/390633/
Timestamp: 2020-01-23 22:56:04
Document Index: 415264189

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 104', '§ 301', '§ 185', '§ 4', '§ 36']

Gulf & South American Steamship Co., Inc., Appellant, v. National Maritime Union of America, Afl-cio, Appellee, 360 F.2d 63 (5th Cir. 1966) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fifth Circuit › 1966 › Gulf & South American Steamship Co., Inc., Appellant, v. National Maritime Union of America, Afl-cio...
Gulf & South American Steamship Co., Inc., Appellant, v. National Maritime Union of America, Afl-cio, Appellee, 360 F.2d 63 (5th Cir. 1966)
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 360 F.2d 63 (5th Cir. 1966) April 25, 1966
"* * * There is, however, properly before me the claim of the Company that the Union is violating the no-strike provision of the contract. It has been my position in other cases involving alleged violations of the no-strike pledge to hold to the view that my power to enjoin should be combined with the power to resolve the dispute. Whether or not I have the power finally to resolve the dispute over manning is now questioned to the extent that the Union contends that the issue is not arbitrable."
It was pointed out that both parties had agreed that a study of the manning problem should be made so as to bring about a settlement of the dispute by bargaining. Because the study had not been made, the arbitrator stated that he was not in position to pass on the manning issue even if he had jurisdiction over the question. He then made an "interim recommendation" that two employees be added to each vessel pending the study and then by way of an order stated:
"* * * it is my decision that the Union and its members should be and hereby are directed to sail the SS GULF TRADER and other ships of the Company pending the outcome of a study of the proper size crew to maintain aboard this and similar vessels of the Company."
The union continued the work stoppage, and the employer sought injunctive relief in the District Court in the form of obtaining enforcement of that part of the arbitrator's award which directed the union to sail the vessels. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was without jurisdiction to grant the injunctive relief sought in view of § 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. 29 U.S.C.A. § 104. The court rejected the contention of the employer that § 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185, was a pro tanto repealer of § 4 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, and that the court thus had jurisdiction.
The court relied on Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 1962, 370 U.S. 195, 82 S. Ct. 1328, 8 L. Ed. 2d 440 as authority for this holding. That decision of the Supreme Court is direct authority on the question and is controlling. There the employer sought the injunction directly while here the injunction is sought under the guise of enforcing the award of an arbitrator but this is a distinction without a difference under the facts of this case, and any other result would be exalting form over substance.
Appellant relies on Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills, 1957, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S. Ct. 912, 1 L. Ed. 2d 972 as implemented by United Steel Workers of America v. American Manufacturing Company, 1960, 363 U.S. 564, 80 S. Ct. 1343, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1403; United Steel Workers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Company, 1960, 363 U.S. 574, 80 S. Ct. 1347, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1409; and United Steel Workers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 1960, 363 U.S. 593, 80 S. Ct. 1358, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1424, to sustain its contention that the District Court had jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief. The argument is that such jurisdiction now lies to give effect to the congressional policy of resolving labor disputes by arbitration, and that injunctive relief to enforce such awards as are made, including orders to discontinue a strike, is a necessary concomitant of this policy.
The power of the arbitrator lies in the subject matter being drawn from the agreement to arbitrate, and absent such power or jurisdiction, there may be no judicial enforcement. United Steel Workers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., supra, 363 U.S. 593, 597, 80 S. Ct. 1358; Cf. Minute Maid Company v. Citrus, Cannery, Food Processing and Allied Workers, Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 444, 5 Cir., 1964, 331 F.2d 280. This was purely and simply an effort to obtain a federal injunction to stop a labor dispute. The federal courts may not grant such relief.
The union's position is that any issue of the manning scale is excluded from arbitration by Art. I, § 36 of the agreement, and left for an industry committee