Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/390/557/case.html
Timestamp: 2020-01-24 12:27:40
Document Index: 400070237

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 1441', '§ 1441', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 301']

AVCO CORP. V. MACHINISTS, 390 U. S. 557 - Volume 390 - 1968 - Full Text - US Supreme Court Center - USSC Cases - Nolo
US Supreme Court Center > Volume 390 > AVCO CORP. V. MACHINISTS, 390 U. S. 557 (1968) > Full Text
AVCO CORP. V. MACHINISTS, 390 U. S. 557 (1968)
Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, International
Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers
376 F.2d 337, affirmed.
Page 390 U. S. 558
Respondents then moved in the Federal District Court for removal of the case. [Footnote 1] A motion to remand to the
Page 390 U. S. 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 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.
"We conclude that the substantive law to apply in suits under § 301(a) is federal law, which the courts must fashion from the policy of our national labor laws. . . . The Labor Management Relations Act expressly furnishes some substantive law. It points out what the parties may or may not do in certain situations. Other problems will lie in the penumbra of express statutory mandates. Some will lack express statutory sanction, but will be solved by looking at the policy of the legislation and fashioning a remedy that will effectuate that policy. The range of judicial inventiveness will be determined by the nature of the problem. . . . Federal interpretation of the federal law will govern, not state law. . . . But state law, if compatible with the purpose of § 301, may be resorted to in order to find the rule that will best effectuate the federal
Page 390 U. S. 560
policy. . . . Any state law applied, however, will be absorbed as federal law and will not be an independent source of private rights."
It is thus clear that the claim under this collective bargaining agreement is one arising under the "laws of the United States" within the meaning of the removal statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). It likewise seems clear that this suit is within the "original jurisdiction" of the District Court within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and (b). It is true that the Court, by a 5-to-3 decision in Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 U. S. 195, held that, although a case was properly in the federal district court by reason of § 301, the Norris-LaGuardia Act bars that court from issuing an injunction in the labor dispute.
Page 390 U. S. 561
The nature of the relief available after jurisdiction attaches is, of course, different from the question whether there is jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy. The relief in § 301 cases varies -- from specific performance of the promise to arbitrate (Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, supra), to enforcement or annulment of an arbitration award (United Steel Workers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U. S. 593), to an award of compensatory damages (Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U. S. 238), and the like. See Smith v. Evening News Assn., 371 U. S. 195, 371 U. S. 199-200. But the breadth or narrowness of the relief which may be granted under federal law in § 301 cases is a distinct question from whether the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Any error in granting or designing relief "does not go to the jurisdiction of the court." Swift Co. v. United States, 276 U. S. 311, 276 U. S. 331. Cf. Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 389 U. S. 254-255. When the Court in Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, supra, at 370 U. S. 215, said that dismissal of a count in the complaint asking for an injunction was correct "for lack of jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act," it meant only that the Federal District Court lacked the general equity power to grant the particular relief. [Footnote 4]
"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding
Page 390 U. S. 562
arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce. . . ."
Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: AVCO CORP. V. MACHINISTS, 390 U. S. 557 (1968)