Document: 372 U.S. 517 83 S.Ct. 789 9 L.Ed.2d 918 GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 89 et al., Petitioners,v.RISS COMPANY, Inc. No. 180. Argued Feb. 19, 1963. Decided March 18, David Previant, Milwaukee, Wis., for petitioners. H. Bemis Lawrence, Louisville, Ky., respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioners are a union and six of its members employed by the respondent interstate motor freight common carrier. The present action was brought in United States District Court Western Kentucky, jurisdiction predicated on § 301 Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 U.S.C. 185. In their complaint, petitioners alleged that had refused to comply with ruling Joint Area Cartage Committee, directing individual be reinstated full seniority back pay. Committee's asserted have been handed down accordance grievance procedures established collective bargaining agreement between employer. relief demanded complaint included reinstatement petitioners, pay fringe benefits time reinstatement. 2 Respondent, after filing answer, moved dismiss complaint. granted motion pleadings as supplemented at pretrial conference excerpts from Local Agreement Court's ground dismissing want federal jurisdiction, result deemed compelled our decision Association Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Elec. Corp., 348 437, 75 489, 99 L.Ed. 510. Appeals Sixth Circuit affirmed, 6 Cir., 298 F.2d 341, but added two more grounds support order dismissal: (1) That determination joint Committee not an arbitration award so enforceable under 301; (2) merits were entitled ordered Committee. We certiorari, 371 810, 31, 53. reverse remand trial. 3 According allegations discharged because they chose respect did picket line another place business Contending such discharge violated Article IX Agreement, which provides part 'it shall cause if any employee or employees refuse go through * *,' invoked machinery set up processed grievances provided channels culminating determination. VIII, 1(e), provides: 'It is agreed all matters pertaining interpretation provisions this contract referred, request party time, final *.' 4 If, allege, binding, has enforce it, notwithstanding decision. See Textile Workers Lincoln Mills, 353 448, 456, n. 6, 77 912, 972; Steelworkers Pullman-Standard Car Mfg. Co., 241 547, 551—552 (C.A.3d Cir. 1957). Plainly, allegation cannot rejected basis merely what record shows. It enough word 'arbitration' does appear agreement, we held policy Act 'can effectuated only means chosen parties settlement differences given play.' American 363 564, 566, 80 1343, 1346, 1403; cf. Retail Clerks etc., Lion Dry Goods, Inc., 369 17, 82 541, 7 503. Thus, bar parties' instrument definitive it 301. And thus enforceable, course open courts reweigh grievance. supra, 567—568, 1346. 5 Of course, should decided trial involved here binding no will lie. Then, seek pursue suit breach contract, there may considered questions unresolved prior decisions. need reach those here. But since below placed much reliance decision, deem appropriate repeat conclusion Smith Evening News Assn., 195, 199, 267, 269, 246, 'subsequent decisions removed underpinnings holding longer authoritative precedent.' Reversed remanded.

Category: 6