Document: 390 U.S. 557 88 S.Ct. 1235 20 L.Ed.2d 126 AVCO CORPORATION, Petitioner,v.AERO LODGE NO. 735, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS et al. No. 445. Argued March 11, 1968. Decided April 8, Rehearing Denied May 20, See 391 929, 1801. J. Mack Swigert, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner. Bernard Dunau, Washington, D.C., respondents. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner filed a suit in state court Tennessee to enjoin respondent union and its members associates from striking at petitioner's plant. The heart complaint was 'no-strike' clause collective bargaining agreement by which 'grievances' were be settled amicably or binding arbitration. eligibility employees promotion engendered disputes—allegedly subject grievance procedure—which so far as appears involved no violence trespass but resulted work stoppages walkout employees. issued an ex parte injunction. 2 Respondent then moved Federal District Court removal case.1 A motion remand made denied, ruling that action within original jurisdiction. granted respondents' dissolve injunction court. Appeals affirmed. 376 F.2d 337. We petition certiorari (389 819, 103, 19 68) because apparent conflict between decision below American Dredging Co. v. Local 25, etc., 338 837, Third Circuit. 3 starting point is § 301 Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U.S.C. 185, which, we held Textile Workers Union America Lincoln Mills, 353 448, 77 912, 972, fashioned Congress place sanctions behind agreements arbitrate disputes. stated: 4 'We conclude substantive law apply suits under 301(a) federal law, courts must fashion policy our national labor laws. * Act expressly furnishes some law. It points out what parties may not do certain situations. Other problems will lie penumbra express statutory mandates. Some lack sanction solved looking legislation fashioning remedy effectuate policy. range judicial inventiveness determined nature problem. interpretation govern, But if compatible with purpose 301, resorted order find rule best Any applied, however, absorbed independent source private rights.' U.S., 456—457, S.Ct., 917 918. 5 An arising controlled even though it brought court.2 Humphrey Moore, 375 335, 84 363, 11 370; 174, etc. Lucas Flour Co., 369 95, 82 571, 7 593; Charles Dowd Box Courtney, 368 502, 519, 483. Removal one aspect3 'the primacy judiciary deciding questions law.' England Louisiana State Bd. Medical Examiners, 411, 415—416, 461, 464—465, 440. 6 thus clear claim this 'laws United States' meaning statute. 28 1441(b). likewise seems 'original jurisdiction' §§ 1441(a) (b). true 5-to-3 Sinclair Refining Atkinson, 370 195, 1328, 8 440, although case properly district reason Norris-LaGuardia bars issuing dispute. relief available after jurisdiction attaches is, course, different question whether there adjudicate controversy. cases varies—from specific performance promise (Textile supra), enforcement annulment arbitration award (United Steel Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 593, 80 1358, 1424), compensatory damages (Atkinson 238, 1318, 462), like. Smith Evening News Assn., 371 199—200, 83 267, 269—270, 9 246. breadth narrowness distinct has over matter. error granting designing 'does go court.' Swift States, 276 311, 331, 48 316, 72 L.Ed. 587. Cf. Zwickler Koota, 389 241, 254—255, 391, 399, 444. When supra, 215, 1339, said dismissal count asking correct 'for Act,' meant only lacked general equity power grant particular relief.4 Title 1337 says 'The shall have any civil proceeding regulating commerce *.' invokes. 457, Affirmed. STEWART, whom HARLAN BRENNAN join concurring. 10 I agree before us removable 1441. Judge denied also dissolved injunction, virtue latter appeal possible stage litigation. 838, n. 2. 12 As says, 'because (he) felt required 440,' ante, 561, 4. accordingly, reserves on effect circumstances presented case. will, doubt, opportunity reconsider scope continuing validity upon appropriate future occasion. 1441 provides relevant part: 'Actions generally. '(a) Except otherwise provided Congress, States jurisdiction, removed defendant defendants, division embracing where such pending. '(b) founded right Constitution, treaties laws without regard citizenship residence parties. *' unnecessary holding remedies Courts are limited F.2d, 343. That conclusion would suggest precluded injunctions disputes, does exercise his right—which confirm today—to remove 1441(b), therefore retains action. occasion resolve matter here, since respondents did elect removed. A. Dobie, Handbook Jurisdiction Procedure 346 (1928); H. Hart Wechsler, System 727—733, 1019—1020 (1953). Another raised here Court, had been removed, should There 1450. Whether powers both clear. went much further dictum reserve those questions.

Category: 9