Document: 369 U.S. 95 82 S.Ct. 571. 7 L.Ed.2d 593 LOCAL 174, TEAMSTERS, CHAUKFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner,v.LUCAS FLOUR COMPANY. No. 50. Argued Nov. and 8, 1961. Decided March 5, 1962. Francis Hoague, Seattle, Wash., for petitioner. Stuart G. Oles, respondent. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner respondent (which we shall call union employer) were parties to a collective bargaining contract within purview National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. contained following provisions, among others: 2 'ARTICLE II 3 'The Employer reserves right discharge any man in his employ if work is not satisfactory. 4 XIV 5 'Should difference as true interpretation this agreement arise, same be submitted Board Arbitration two members, one representing firm, Union. If said members cannot agree, third member, who must disinterested party selected, decision binding. It further agreed by both hereto that during such arbitration, there no suspension work. 6 arise between employer employee, arbitration parties. Failing they mutually appoint person whose final binding.' In May 1958 an employee named Welsch was discharged after he had damaged new fork-lift truck running it off loading platform onto some railroad tracks. When business agent protested, told representative been because unsatisfactory thereupon called strike force rehire Welsch. lasted eight days.1 After over, issue Welsch's arbitration. Some five months later rendered decision, ruling unsatisfactory, reason discharge, entitled reinstatement employee. meantime, brought suit against Superior Court King County, Washington, asking damages losses caused strike. trial court entered judgment favor amount $6,501.60.2 On appeal affirmed Department One Supreme Washington. 57 Wash.2d 95, 356 P.2d 1. reviewing held pre-emption doctrine San Diego Building Trades Council, etc. v. Garmon, 359 236, 79 773, 775, did deprive jurisdiction over controversy. 301 Management Act 1947, U.S.C. 185, could 'reasonably interpreted pre-empting state jurisdiction, or affecting limiting substantive law applied.' at 102, 5. Expressly applying principles law, reasoned violation contract, attempt coerce forego contractual work.3 We granted certiorari consider questions federal labor which case presents. 365 868, 81 902, 859. 8 note outset question our jurisdiction. Although before us has certified actually heard decided court, consisting nine full court. Since have filed petition rehearing en banc but do so, argument made 'rendered highest State had,' therefore power review. 28 1257, 1257. This primarily rests upon Gorman Washington University, 316 98, 62 962, 86 L.Ed. 1300, that, view structure Missouri's judicial system, separate division had.4 evident, however, governing rehearings quite unlike particularized provisions Missouri led dismiss writ Gorman. 9 As pointed out, Constitution expressly conferred originally involved. provision constitution basis conclusion regard step appellate process involving question. '(T)he Missouri,' said, 'has thus provided class cases review * *.' 100, 963. 10 By contrast, matter right. statutes authorize its sit Departments, each empowered 'to hear determine causes, all arising therein.'5 Cases coming may assigned discretion Chief specified number other court.6 provides becomes unless 30 days filed, ordered on court's own initiative.7 11 can discern Washington's system indication present case, unanimously majority judges than word State's court.8 properly us, turn issues 12 those issues—whether 301(a) 1947 deprives courts litigation this—we Term Charles Dowd Box Co. Courtney, 368 502, 519, 483. For reasons stated hold correct controversy.9 There remain consideration issues, them implicated specifically Box. Was free, thought, decide controversy limited horizon local law? not, does applicable require result different from reached court? 13 proceeded hypothesis would apply exercising 301(a), although claim variance relevant legal Massachusetts. nothing 'limiting applied,' accordingly dispose exclusively terms law. insists reference under national contract. this, incompatible doctrines give way law.10 hold, application leads affirmance us. 14 apparently theory Textile Workers Union Lincoln Mills, 353 448, 77 912, 972, requires fashion, policy laws, body enforcement agreements, nonetheless, States free individualized rules when enforce agreements. accepted. dimensions paramount area covered statute. Comprehensiveness inherent formulated mandate requiring raised suits kind according precepts policy. 15 More important, subject 'is peculiarly calls uniform law.' Pennsylvania R. Public Service Comm., 250 566, 569, 40 36, 37, 64 1142; see Cloverleaf Butter Patterson, 315 148, 167—169, 491, 501—503, 754. possibility individual might meanings inevitably exert disruptive influence negotiation administration Because neither certain rights obtained conceded, negotiating immeasurably more difficult necessity trying formulate contain meaning systems someday invoked enforcing Once bargain made, conflicting competing tend stimulate prolong disputes interpretation.11 Indeed, existence possibly concepts substantially impede parties' willingness agree providing arbitral resolution disputes. 16 importance affected makes need single particularly compelling. ordering adjusting interests through voluntary keystone scheme promote industrial peace. frustrates effort Congress smooth functioning strikes very core With due many factors bear area, California Zook, 336 725, 730—731, 69 841, 843—844, 93 1005; Rice Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 218, 230—231, 67 1146, 1152, 91 1447, conclude enacting intended uniformly prevail inconsistent rules. 17 Whether, ultimate argued absence no-strike clause explicitly covering dispute called. disagree. 18 imposed duty submitting binding arbitration.12 consistent course decisions Courts Appeals least Federal Circuits settle settled finally compulsory constitutes agreement.13 conclusion. W. L. Mead, Inc., 113 N.L.R.B. 1040. approve doctrine.14 To otherwise obviously violence accepted traditional Even point, contrary completely odds with basic legislation substitute economic warfare. See United Steelworkers Warrior Gulf Nav. Co., 363 574, 80 1347, 1409. 19 What suggest implied beyond will terminal Nor problems specific whether upon, and, what arbitrable.15 But are case. grievance struck was, concedes, submission proceedings. obligation. 20 Affirmed. 21 BLACK, dissenting. 22 company into written containing express growing out differences proper terms: 23 24 now finds—out clear air, so far I union, without saying agreement, only arbitrate differences, also promised while pending provision. And 'discovery' additional unwritten promise upholds awarding substantial breach 25 That Court's vacates amends themselves signed shown, think, byu face original immediately follows another provision—one 'as agreement' 26 work.' (Emphasis supplied.) 27 fact latter contains explicit 'that work,' seems me plain knowing how write strike, deliberately included broad excluded essentially factual particular instances. anywhere else indicates perfectly sensible framework handling these kinds operate precise manner dictated language provisions. defense offered rewriting allow stand 'would law' 'be process.' supposed, however—though evidently thinks otherwise—that job contracts effect contracting do, think ought do. unable find principle law—traditional permits change nature adding promises refused make order court-made better fit whatever social, economic, policies believe important should taken realm legislative furthered legislation. mere about 'final binding' certainly justify relinquished support position dispute. here involves, proceeding, agreeing arbitrate, given up distinct methods getting way. Surely, preclude attempting persuade action against, even where fully emloyer's supports situation historically, recognized Wagner Taft-Hartley Acts, unions' most weapon persuasion. say sounds like dull echo used popular work—an frequently went common Constitution. burden placed writing minor interest union. history relations country emphasizes great unions well understandable desire part employers avoid stoppages. Both discussions much stake resulting agreement. get giving matters constantly minds negotiate contracts. setting, hold—on evidence whatever—that it, impliedly surrendered virtue 'traditional anything just fiction. took 50 years understand anyone familiar legislatively undercut attenuated implications uses here. 31 mean sometimes found facts circumstances sufficient warrant intention contrary. implication purports here—an war making normal understanding made—has supported scrap record. flows itself nor, record shows, my judgment, 'implication' described rigid rule precisely strike—a introduces revolutionary field bargaining. 32 shows congressional purpose treat agreements insuring stability production relations. settlements desirable excuse imposing 'contracts,' either compel forbid striking, unwilling approach philosophy Act. Whatever enacted best bring peace voluntary, compelled, Section torn roots sort decision. reverse relegate forum belongs—the table. terminated temporary injunction issued noted unreported memorandum judge indicated liability based tort, rather liability. however: 'From pleadings, established injured appellant's clearly Therefore, sustained pleadings proof applicable.' 103, 6. Osment Pitcairn, 317 587, 63 21, 87 481. Article IV, provides, pertinent part, legislature increase supreme time provide departments court.' Revised Code 2.04.120, provides: 'Two departments—Quorum. denominated respectively department two. chief justice assign four associate assignment changed him time: Provided, competent interchange themselves, justice. preside sitting, select their presiding judge. Each therein, relation banc. presence three necessary transact departments, except done chambers, adjourn present, concurrence pronounce department: concur, cause reheard transmitted department, banc.' 2.04.150, 'Apportionment business—En hearings. apportion may, discretion, pronounced, determined allotted pronounced justice, together judges, Any 2.04.160, 'Finality departmental decision—Rehearings. hereinafter provided, become until thirty filing thereof, period rehearing, hearing banc, which, suspending disposed of. date filing, thirty-day made: *. Whenever final, herein thereon.' Market Street Railroad 324 548, 551—552, 65 770, 772—773, 89 1171. recent have, challenge, reviewed merits several filed. See, e.g., McGrath Rhay, 364 279, 1609, 1719; Ross Schneckloth, 357 575, 78 1387, 1547; Carroll Construction 346 802, 74 22, 98 333. th eLabor pre-emptive exclusive Board, relevant. America, Local 4264 New Park Mining 273 F.2d 352 (C.A.10th Cir.); Independent Petroleum Esso Standard Oil 235 401 (C.A.3d generally Lodge 12, District Int'l Ass'n Machinists Cameron Iron Works, 257 467 (C.A.5th Plumbers Steamfitters Union, 598 Dillion, 255 820 (C.A.9th International Operating Engineers, 181 Dahlem Const. 193 470 (C.A.6th Cir.). U.S., 513, S.Ct., 526, 'deliberately chose leave usual processes law." H.R.Conf.Rep. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. p. 52, U.S.Code Cong.Service 1135. is, course, conduct obligation constituting unfair practice, imply affects remedy practices, such. Dunau, Contractual Prohibition Unfair Practices: Jurisdictional Problems, Col.L.Rev. 52. Of assumed 301, few considered problem versus McCarroll Los Angeles County Dist. Council Carpenters, 49 Cal.2d 45, 60, 322, 330, govern. Accord: 774, Cessna Aircraft 186 Kan. 420; Harbison-Walker Refractories Brick Clay Workers, 702, 339 S.W.2d 933, 935—936 (Ky.Ct.App.). Other unnecessary question, conflict presented. Karcz Luther Mfg. 338 Mass. 313, 317, 155 N.E.2d 441, 444; Springer Powder Power Tool 220 Or. 106—107, 348 1112, 1114; Clark Hein-Werner Wis.2d 264, 277, 99 N.W.2d 132, 100 318 (on motion rehearing). bears noting, others, Connecticut Division 425, etc., Street, Electric Railway Employees, 147 Conn. 608, 622—623, 164 A.2d 413, 420, carefully precedents resolving them. commentator said: 'Words document ambiguous, grows helps dispel ambiguity. bodies accommodated conflict-of-laws rule, calculated aggravate alleviate situation.' Wellington, System, U. Chi.L.Rev. 542, 557. appears 'difference 'between employee' 96, 573, supra. concedes but, indeed, arbitrated. Brotherhood Teamsters, 230 576, 583—584 (C.A.1st Haislip Baking 223 872, 876—877 (C.A.4th Dorsey, Trailers, 179 589, 592 Lewis Benedict Coal 259 346, 351 Sunset Minerals, 211 224, 226 Deciding ground, adopt reasoning Insofar susceptible construction term ipso facto reject it. respect problems, compare Mine America 103 U.S.App.D.C. 207, 211, Cir., (affirmed equally divided Court, 361 459, 489, 442), differing interpretations identical

Category: 6