Document: 405 U.S. 228 92 S.Ct. 859 31 L.Ed.2d 165 IOWA BEEF PACKERS, INC., Petitioner,v.Edward D. THOMPSON et al. No. 70—286. Feb. 29, 1972. Argued Jan. 12, Decided Louis S. Goldberg, Sioux City, Iowa, for petitioner. A. Raymond Randolph, Jr., Washington, D.C., the United States as amicus curiae, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court. Edward Franck, Denison, respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondents brought this suit in an Iowa District Court under § 16(b) Fair Labor Standards Act, 52 Stat. 1069, amended, 29 U.S.C. 216(b), to recover overtime compensation allegedly not paid their petitioner employer violation provisions 207(a)(1). The denied petitioner's motion dismiss action failure respondents exhaust grievance arbitration procedures provided a collective-bargaining agreement between and respondents' union awarded claimed plus costs attorneys' fees. Supreme affirmed, 185 N.W.2d 738 (1971). We granted certiorari, 404 820, 70, 30 48 2 required provide lunch period each employee no later than five hours from start employee's shift. Petitioner but employees remain on call during period. did choose, perhaps contract was open them, make requirement basis alleged either lunch-period provision or hours-of-work provision, Art. VII, requiring time one-half worked over eight any day 40 week. They instead that, because requirement, matter law, rendered 'work' time, whether actually worked, purpose determining violated its statutory obligation pay rates work See Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 126, 65 165, 89 L.Ed. 118 (1944). thus pertained Act. 3 In Bulk Carriers Arguelles, 400 351, 91 409, 27 456 (1971), held that seaman could sue federal court wages 46 596 without invoking resolution all disputes grievances, merely those based violations contract. certiorari case decide whether, similarly, may withheld if complaint is also subject agreement. It developed at oral argument, however, provisions, XX involved case, do have broad scope apply only grievances 'pertaining Agreement.' Moreover, issues presented occasion address, we intimate view upon, question although claim arbitration, pursuit remedy nevertheless barred might made be these circumstances, which were fully apprehended granted, writ will dismissed improvidently granted. Monrosa Carbon Black, Inc., 359 180, 183, 79 710, 712, 723 (1959). 4 so ordered. 5 Writ dismissed. 6 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting. 7 clause collective reaches 'a pertaining covered both period1 overtime.2 8 '(t)he present controversy undoubtedly arbitrable' Given presumption favoring liberal construction clauses, Steelworkers America Warrior Gulf Co., 363 574, 582—583, 80 1347, 1352, 1409, should defer ruling. Even construction, it seems 207(a)(1) maintainable. That would mean affirming 456, kept courthouse door open, seem control case.3 9 An affirmance follow, fortiori, construed FLSA claim. For then worker choice statute proceed his contractual arising out same dispute. 10 petition, reasons wholly different one. said there 'on call' duty conflicted with difficulty twofold: ever tendered far record shows; moreover, concededly does cover duty. So conflict posed imaginary. 11 'dismiss granted' exceptional situations where nine members agree. other cases merits decided. facts simple uncomplicated; decision apparently important unions alike. Article XIV, 1, states: 'A shall (5) shift, except when shift exceed (5 1/2) hours.' 3, 'Time (1 excess (8) day. Time forty (40) one week.' properly stated: 'We doubt general Congressional intent can stand against specific manifest Act giving strong detailed rights court. think Congress intended workmen free access courts cases. are more persuaded policy expressed FLSA, U.S.C.A. 202. There objectives act set forth, encompass simply wage relief employees; they include economic considerations—improvement commerce among states. remedies part scheme obtain compliance hence achievement broader objectives. believe allow arbitrate option seaman's there, give such Act.' 738, 742.

Category: 8