Document: 398 U.S. 235 90 S.Ct. 1583 26 L.Ed.2d 199 The BOYS MARKETS, INC., Petitioner,v.RETAIL CLERK'S UNION, LOCAL 770. No. 768. Argued April 21, 22, 1970. Decided June 1, [Syllabus from pages 235-236 intentionally omitted] Joseph M. McLaughlin, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. Kenneth Schwartz, respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 In this case we re-examine holding Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 195, 82 1328, 8 440 (1962), that anti-injunction provisions Norris-LaGuardia Act1 preclude a federal district court enjoining strike in breach no-strike obligation under collectivebargaining agreement, even though agreement contains provisions, enforceable § 301(a) Labor Management Relations Act, 1947,2 binding arbitration grievance dispute concerning which was called. Court Appeals Ninth Circuit, considering itself bound by reversed grant District Central California petitioner's prayer injunctive relief. 416 F.2d 368 (1969). We granted certiorari. 396 1000, 572, 24 492 (1970). Having concluded erroneously decided and subsequent events have undermined its continuing validity, overrule decision reverse judgment Appeals. 2 * February 1969, at time incidents produced litigation, petitioner respondent were parties to collective-bargaining provided, inter alia, all controversies interpretation or application should be resolved adjustment procedures set forth therein3 that, during life contract, there 'no cessation stoppage work, lock-out, picketing boycotts *.'4 arose when frozen foods supervisor certain members his crew who not bargaining unit began rearrange merchandise food cases one supermarkets. A union representative insisted stripped restocked personnel. When did accede union's demand, called picket establishment. Thereupon demanded cease work sought invoke specified contract. 3 following day, since had been terminated, filed complaint Superior seeking temporary restraining order, preliminary permanent injunction, specific performance contractual provision. state issued order forbidding continuation also an show cause why injunction granted. Shortly thereafter, removed Federal made motion quash court's order. opposition, moved compelling strike. Concluding subject violation ordered arbitrate underlying simultaneously enjoined strike, vicinity supermarket, any attempts induce employees refuse perform their services. II 4 At outset, are met with respondent's contention ought disturbed because turned on question statutory construction Congress can alter time. Since has modified our conclusions Sinclair, it urged do so,5 argues principles stare decisis govern present case. 5 agree doctrine bars re-examination circumstances fully recognize important policy considerations militate favor continuity predictability law. Nevertheless, as Frankfurter wrote Court, '(S)tare is principle mechanical formula adherence latest decision, however recent questionable, such involves collision prior more embracing scope, intrinsically sounder, verified experience.' Helvering Hallock, 309 106, 119, 60 444, 451, 84 L.Ed. 604 (1940). See Swift & Wickham, 382 111, 116, 86 258, 261, 15 194 (1965). It precisely stands significant departure otherwise consistent emphasis upon congressional promote peaceful settlement labor disputes through arbitration6 efforts accommodate harmonize those Act7 believe reconsidered. Furthermore, light developments particular Avco Corp. Aero Lodge 735, 390 557, 88 1235, 20 126 (1968), become clear does further but rather frustrates realization goal national policy. 6 Nor conclusive weight accorded failure respond theory silence interpreted acceptance decision. cautioned '(i)t best treacherous find alone adoption controlling rule law.' Girouard United States, 328 61, 69, 66 826, 830, 1084 (1946). Therefore, absence persuasive evidencing design inaction taken mere sufficient reason refusing reconsider supra, 119—120, 451 452. III 7 From Textile Workers Union America Lincoln Mills, 353 448, 77 912 (1957), decided, frequently found necessary consider various substantive procedural aspects contract law questions both courts. Mills held generally 'the apply suits law, courts must fashion laws,' U.S., 456, 918, specifically obtain employer's promise grievances. rejected proscriptions Act prohibited type relief, noting refusal 'part parcel abuses against aimed,' id., 458, manifests determination encouraged. 29 U.S.C. 108.8 Subsequently Steelworkers Trilogy9 emphasized importance instrument resolving between management lower usurping functions arbitrator. Serious remained, however, role play involving agreements. Confronted some these problems Charles Dowd Box Courtney, 502, 519, 483 clearly intended disturb pre-existing jurisdiction over violations noted 9 'clear implication entire record debates 1946 1947 purpose conferring displace, supplement, thoroughly considered States contracts organizations.' Id., 511, 525. 10 after Box, sustained, Local 174, Teamsters, etc. Lucas Flour Co., 369 95, 571, 593 award damages employer provision While emphasizing 'in enacting 301 doctrines uniformly prevail inconsistent local rules,' 104, 577, applicability proceedings relief only obligation. 11 Subsequent initially brought may designated forum removal delineated 28 1441. so holding, expressly left open whether courts, action, required dissolve previously General Electric 191, 413 964 (C.A.5th Cir. 1969) (dissolution required). Three Justices concurred expressed view reconsidered 'upon appropriate future occasion.' 562, S.Ct., 1238 (Stewart, J., concurring).10 12 Avco, viewed context progeny, anomalous situation which, view, makes urgent reconsideration Sinclair. principal practical effect together nothing less than oust where defendants can, matter course, court,11 obviously incentive them gain advantage strictures imposes sanctioning practice, wholly conclusion embodied encroach upon, courts.12 ironic indeed very provide additional remedies agreements employed displace existing remedies. liberty thus depart contrary. 13 On other hand, extent widely disparate theoretically remain available state, opposed federal, uniformity elaborated seriously offended. This policy, could hardly require, matter, administered identically undoubtedly diversity exists among systems matters remedial detail, fact evidently took into account deciding traditional States. device, particularly context, availability non-availability will produce rampant shopping maneuvering another greatly frustrate relative enforcement 14 scheme, remedy technically rendered inefficacious assigns totally unintended function. purposes providing somewhat obscure,13 never serious mechanism utilized foreclose completely Although well protection rights deemed encourage development expertise no indication wholesale dislocation allocation judicial business Cf. City Greenwood, Mis. Peacock, 384 808, 1800, 16 944 (1966). true each foregoing objections Sinclair-Avco remedied either overruling extending commentators suggested solution unsatisfactory lie extension prohibition proceedings,14 Chief Traynor Supreme 'whether deprive power give (injunctive) enforcing collective agreements, attempted section 301.' McCarroll Angeles County Dist. Council Carpenters, 49 Cal.2d 45, 63, 315 P.2d 322, 332 cert. denied, 355 932, 78 413, 415 (1958). e.g., American Dredging 25, Marine, 338 837 (C.A.3d 1964), 380 935, 85 941, 822 (1965); Shaw I.B.E.W., 418 Pa. 208 A.2d 769 An dilemma devastating implications enforceability accompanying obligations if equitable available.15 As indicated, obligation, express implied, quid pro quo undertaking submit process arbitration. 455, 917.16 Any employers enter arrangement necessarily dissipated most expeditious method enforced eliminated. course true, contends, avenues redress, action damages, would aggrieved employer, settled substitute immediate halt illegal prosecuted tend aggravate industrial strife delay early resolution difficulties union.17 17 Even encouraged unavailability resist remains effectiveness reduced withheld. Indeed, without resort strikes, lockouts, self-help measures. basic largely undercut immediate, effective tactics designed obviate. Thus, aftermath casts doubt vital element stable labor-menagement relations—arbitration attendant obligations—we conclude make viable contribution IV 18 determined dissenting states correct accommodation seemingly absolute terms 301(a).18 215, 1339. need repeat said, few points 19 literal accommodated subsequently enacted Statutory requires concentration isolated words; rather, consideration given total corpus pertinent policies inspired ostensibly provisions. Richards 11, 585, 592, (1962); Mastro Plastics NLRB, 350 270, 285, 76 349, 359, 100 (1956); Hutcheson, 312 219, 235, 61 463, 467, 788 (1941). responsive different today. part century, regarded allies attempt prevent organization strengthening unions; struggle became potent weapon wielded activities groups.19 result large number sweeping decrees, often ex parte, drawn ad hoc basis regard systematic elaboration Milk Wagon Drivers' Union, Lake Valley 311 91, 102, 122, 127, 63 21 1932 bring out chaos developed resulted interjection judiciary union-management behalf management. declaration public 2, 47 Stat. 70. Congress, therefore, limit severely issue injunctions growing *.' 4, enacted, means absolute. §§ 7, 8, 9, 71, 72. thereafter passed Wagner Act,20 curb tended discourage employee participation action. 22 organizations grew strength toward maturity, shifted nascent movement encouragement administrative techniques disputes. shift accomplished, extensive revision many older enactments, including Act. Thus task accommodate, reconcile statutes ones. 23 leading example Brotherhood Railroad Trainmen Chicago River Ind. R. 30, 635, 622 (1957). There confronted violated duty imposed Railway responsive, involved statutorily mandated procedure, imperiled implement it, hence Norris-LaGuardia's nonintervention yield overriding interest successful implementation process. equally applicable To sure, established statute. However, noted, Trilogy, Flour, attached voluntary end. stated exposition 301(a), 'went long way towards making central institution administration contracts.'21 25 technique peacefully resolve similar devices. Clearly wary assuming similarly efficacious enforce concomitant refrain striking. foster growth viability retarded—if anything, advanced—by device merely enforces freely undertook arbitration.22 conclude, presents impediment favoring establishment disputes, core sacrificed limited use consequently bar granting instant V Our narrow one. undermine vitality deal mandatory procedure. follow what said every arbitrable grievance. guidance determining relief—principles now adopt: 27 'A entertaining concerted activity unless until decides despite contractually arbitrate, first holds effect; condition obtaining Beyond this, must, issuance warranted ordinary equity—whether breaches occurring continue, threatened committed; they caused irreparable injury employer; suffer denial issuance.' 228, 1346. (Emphasis original.) ready proceed obtained. 'has suffered continue injury.' reliance reversed. Accordingly, remand directions affirming ordered. 30 Judgment remanded directions. 31 MARSHALL 32 STEWART, concurring. 33 440, 1962, I subscribed Before six years reached reconsidered, 1238, (concurring opinion). Today join concluding 'that validity 34 temptation strong embark lengthy personal apologia. But my views today, simply Court's judgment. aphorism provides me refuge: 'Wisdom too comes, reject comes late.' Henslee Planters Bank, 335 595, 600, 69 290, 293, 93 259 (dissenting 35 BLACK, dissenting. 36 exceptions here relevant, broadest comprehensive language issuing injunctions, permanent, dispute. Subsequently, 1947, gave '(s) uits organization.' subsection, Taft-Hartley 185(a), explicitly waives amount-in-controversy requirements jurisdiction, says about injunctions. Eight ago relation two statutes: full briefing argument, relying history Acts, wish later statute impair explicit (1962). 37 steadfastly refused so. Nothing Acts changed. changed, fact, except membership Justice. correctly and, moreover, close heart system regulation. control disposition 38 majority correct, saying misinterpreted compelled dissent. changing laws affect substantial people primarily Most especially focus strongly powerful antagonistic political economic interests. function carefully avoid encroaching determine carry out. 39 implies Stare rests solely 'important law,' tell whole story. Such field delicate relations, extremely important. Brandeis Burnet Coronado Oil Gas 285 393, 406, 52 443, 447, 815 (1932): 40 'Stare usually wise right.' 41 case, certainty equal treatment situated litigants adhere precedent. 42 interpreting statute, factor weighed balance. deference owes primary responsibility legislature laws. Of interprets then becomes is. Gulf, C. S.F.R. Moser, 275 133, 136, 48 49, 50, 72 200 (1927). initial proper, unavoidable, applying general multitude situations. B. Cardozo, Nature Judicial Process 112 115 (1921). undertakes interpretation, special ability fathom intent unavoidable before it. earlier 'reinterpretation' gratuitous neither nor amendment: alteration placed 43 Altering legislative And Constitution unequivocally: 'All Powers herein shall vested U.S.Const. Art. I. responds presures groups, pressures entirely proper free society. capacity investigate divergent complex elected people. should, interject little possible law-making law-changing meaning concluded, absent extraordinary circumstances. changes mind later, judges judgment, takes legislature. 44 reversal here. invited act displeased 214—215, 1339: 45 'Strong arguments us highly desirable changed interest. If so, might see fit change repeal insofar concerned, House bill originally provided. might, decide necessary, idea private discarded machinery Board, Senator Taft provided Senate bill. Or methods satisfactory turn instead new approach. change, any, properly within exclusive domain Congress—it lawmakers, interpreters.' 46 Commentators invitation clear, self-restraint proper. Dunau, Problems Arbitration, 55 Va.L.Rev. 427, 464 465 (1969); Wellington Albert, Interpretation Political Process: Comment Yale L.J. 1547, 1565—1566 (1963). Bills introduced change. S. 3132, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. H.R. 9059, act, indicating least willingness leave construed seems inappropriate now, eight enact amendment adopt. Toolson New York Yankees, Inc., 346 356, 74 78, 98 64 (1953); International Boxing Club York, 348 236, 242—244, 75 259, 262—263, 99 290 (1955). forecloses reconsiderations decisions. area constitutional example, alternative laborious ultimate always James 366 213, 233—234, 81 1052, 1062—1063, 246 (1961) (separate Black, J.).* appearance facts warrant past decisions exceptional 70, And, although bills introduced, cf. 451—452, (1940), declined act. 'subsequent event' point (1968). 561, 1237: 'The nature attaches is, adjudicate controversy.' 'anomalous situation' clauses unenforceable 'an policy.' effort clause removable court, unenforceable. Damages awarded; forced arbitrate. engage self-help. injunction. That doubtless true. harshness relief—and opposition 'government injunction'—were precise reasons indeed, highlight powers unhappy defined them, act; not. sensitive 'realization policy' predecessors goals 'our policy,' division branches Government. remember words John Adams, written Declaration Rights Commonwealth Massachusetts: 50 (department) exercise executive powers, them: end government men.' 51 WHITE dissents Atkinso, 'No prohibit person persons participating interested (as defined) doing, singly concert, acts: '(a) Ceasing employment; '(e) Giving publicity existence of, in, dispute, advertising, speaking, patrolling, fraud violence; '(f) Assembling peaceably organize promotion interests dispute; '(i) Advising, urging, causing inducing violence acts heretofore 104. 'Suits representing industry affecting commerce chapter, organizations, having parties, respect amount controversy citizenship parties.' 156, 185(a). 'ARTICLE XIV 'ADJUSTMENT AND ARBITRATION 'A. CONTROVERSY, DISPUTE OR DISAGREEMENT. 'Any controversy, disagreement kind character arising Agreement (with relevant case) manner hereinafter forth. 'B. ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURE. 'C. ARBITRATION. '1. satisfactorily Paragraph B hereinabove submitted final demand party *. '4. arbitrator board empowered hear 'D. POWERS, LIMITATIONS RESERVATIONS. '2. Work Stoppages. Matters Article herein. During term Agreement, boycotts, limitation hereto refuses fails abide by, accept board.' See, Report Special Atkinson-Sinclair Committee, A.B.A. Law Section—Proceedings 226 (1963) (hereinafter cited Report). Mfg. 363 564, 80 1343, 1403 (1960); Warrior Gulf Nav. 574, 1347, 1409 Enterprise Wheel Car Corp., 593, 1358, 1424 912, 972 (1957); supra; Graham Locomotive Firemen, 232, 70 14, 94 (1949). Section 108 provides: complainant failed comply question, reasonable settle negotiation aid governmental mediation arbitration.' Toledo, Peoria, W.R. 321 534 (1944). supra. erosive weaken underpinnings. Various authorities mitigating rigor rule. For Fifth Circuit arbitrator's directing terminate stoppages clause. Orleans Steamship Assn. Longshore Workers, 389 369, 393 828, 89 92, (1968); Pacific Maritime Longshoremen's Warehousemen's 304 F.Supp. 1315 (D.C.N.D.Cal.1969). Keene, No-Strike Clauses: Beyond, Vill.L.Rev. require minimum jurisdictional controversy. All pursuant perhaps articulated Ferguson, spokesman provision, debate 1946: 'MR. FERGUSON. President, whatever now-being-considered away State Courts jurisdiction. take disagree amendment. MURRAY. authorizes suit desire. correct. does. courts.' 92 Cong.Rec. 5708. meager, same original Judiciary 1875, 470, namely, protect rights, H. Hart Wechsler, System 727—733 (1953), accurately interpret Mishkin, 'Question' Courts, 53 Col.L.Rev. 157, 159 (1953). 113 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1096, 1098 n. Bartosic, Injunctions 301: Patchwork Philadelphia Marine Fabric National Policy, 980 427 one-half so-called 'little Acts' place restrictions jurisdictions Norris-LaGuardia-type obligations. 1001—1006; 10, nn. 79, 80. 'will exclusively covered compulsory terminal arbitration' (369 578) gives rise implied response 104 577—578. neutral committee raised report: 'Under laws, maintain resulting discipline involved. cases, alternatives feasible. Discharge strikers inexpedient lack qualified replacements adverse relationships plant. damage losses hard calculate hesitate exacerbate relations bringing Hence, pledge effectuate 242. Scholarly criticism sharp, appears almost universally recognized untenable situation. divided, proposed solutions, others suggesting still recommending Congress. Aaron, Strikes Breach Collective Agreements: Some Unanswered Questions, 1027 (1963); Injunction Reappraised, U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 292 14; 10; Kiernan, Availability Against Breaches Agreements Contracts, Albany L.Rev. 303 Wellington, Clause Injunction: Time Re-examination, U.Pitt.L.Rev. 293 1547 F. N. Greene, (1930). 449, amended, 151 Et seq. 18, 1557. committee: proposal unions behind seem scarcely (in enjoined). wide-spread dissatisfaction tendency enjoin accordance 'doctrines tort lawfulness depend social (Citation omitted.) Where used subjected judicially created limitations freedom agreed. Moreover, arbitrable, deprived practicable pressing claim impartial tribunal agreed establish purpose.' Other distinction matters, indicated correction errors Douglas dissent 133—134, 271, (1965): 'An error easily remedied. perceive intention thwart purpose, lessons experience learned alone.' Improvement Continental 381 392, 1517, 1525, 466 (1965) (Douglas, dissenting). Apparently, willing greater matters. Orozco Texas, 394 324, 327—328, 1095, 1097—1098, (1969) (Harlan, concurring).

Category: 6