Document: 370 U.S. 195 82 S.Ct. 1328 8 L.Ed.2d 440 SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, Petitioner,v.Semuel M. ATKINSON et al. No. 434. Argued April 18, 1962. Decided June George B. Christensen, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner. Gilbert A. Cornfield, respondents. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The question this case presents is whether § 301 Taft-Hartley Act, in giving federal courts jurisdiction suits between employers and unions breach collective bargaining agreements,1 impliedly repealed 4 pre-existing Norris-LaGuardia which, with certain exceptions not here material, barred from issuing injunctions 'in any involving or growing out labor dispute.'2 2 complaint was filed by petitioner Sinclair Refining Company against Oil, Chemical Atomic Workers International Union Local 7—210 that union alleged: Union, acting authority its members, signed a written contract which provided compulsory, final binding arbitration 'any difference regarding wages, hours working conditions parties hereto Employer an employee covered agreement might arise within plant region operations'; also included express provisions agreed 'there shall be no slowdowns reason whatsoever' 'no strikes work stoppages * (f)or cause may subject grievance'; notwithstanding these promises members had, over period some 19 months, engaged on nine separate occasions, each charged, grew grievance could have been submitted to under therefore fell squarely unions' strike. This pattern repeated, deliberate violations contract, alleged, indicated complete disregard part their obligations probability they would continue 'subvert contract' forbidding grievances future unless were enjoined doing so. In situation, claimed, there adequate remedy at law protect contractual rights court should enter orders enjoining agents 'preliminarily first, thereafter permanently, aiding, abetting, fomenting, advising, participating in, ratifying, condoning strike, stoppage work, slowdown other disruption of, interference normal employment operation production unit plaintiff's East Indiana refinery dated August 8, 1957, support because matter thing is, be, procedure said extension thereof, contain like similar provisions.'3 3 moved dismiss ground it sought injunctive relief United States courts, virtue give. District Court first denied motion, but subsequently, upon reconsideration after full oral argument, vacated original order granted motion dismiss.4 reaching conclusion, reasoned controversy unquestionably 'labor dispute' meaning Act came proscription 'withdraws issue prohibit refusal 'to perform remain relation employment' cases dispute.'5 Appeals Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal same reasons.6 Because decision presented conflict important Tenth Circuit,7 we certiorari.8 We agree below does involve Act. Section 13 expressly defines dispute as including concerning terms employment, association representation persons negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, seeking arrange regardless disputants stand proximate employer employee.'9 Sinclair's own shows quite plainly alleged arose well definition.10 5 Nor circumstance constituted alter plain fact involved. Arguments contrary proceed premise expresses public policy specific anti-injunction based, contains language indicating one primary concern Congress insure workers right exercise actual liberty 'concerted activities purpose bargaining.'11 From premise, argues interpretation term so include arising union's abide freely acceded apply way defeats purposes enacted. But though forcefully urged both much current commentary question,12 rests more considerations what many commentators think desirable industrial view understanding prevailing circumstances contemporary labormanagement relations than correct judicial Congress. 6 place, even general declarations are foundation whole do conclusion urged. That section purport limit protection but, instead, recognizes need engage mutual aid protection.' Moreover, broad inclusive leaves slightest opening reading beyond those clearly into itself.13 7 cannot ignore import congressional enactment, particularly repeatedly said, deliberately drafted broadest avoid danger narrowed construction.14 Since hold present grow dispute,' injunction runs counter contained 4(a) peaceful picketing 4(e) prohibiting advising such 4(i).15 For reasons, deprives unless, contended here, scope has subsequent enactment longer prohibits specifically described where agreement. Upon consideration, instead expressed supported Courts First Second Circuits intended partially repealing effect long-standing, carefully thought highly significant country's legislation Act.16 9 itself seems us almost if entirely conclusive question. It especially stretch imagination interpreted constitute explicit repeal another provision dealing responsibility acts agents.17 If had certainly likely made intent known manner. indeed precisely did 101, amending 10(h) National Labor Relations 208(b) permitting obtained, private litigants, only instance Board Attorney General,18 302(e), litigants obtain integrity employees' representatives carrying responsibilities.19 Thus failure expressing must evaluated context satutory indicates completely familiar regarded declaration inapplicability proper manner them situations seemed desirable. 10 When inquiry carried legislative history, whatever small doubts survived consideration bare wholly dissipated. history actually considered advisability insofar based agreements concerned chose so.20 eventually enacted product conference Committees House Senate, selected resolve conflicting respective bills passed. Prior conference, bill contracts declared Act's suits.21 passed bill, not, make prohibition inapplicable suits.22 Instead unfair practice.23 Under Senate version, therefore, agreement, practice, suit brought Board,24 version permitted issuance party. At declaring dropped never became law. Instead, conferees, 301, 'be left usual processes law'25 that, rather Board, change existing made. Conference Report recognized actions prohibitions eliminated Conference: 11 'Section 302(e) proceedings organization. Only provides organization interested held responsible unlawful except clear proof authorization acts, ratification knowledge thereof. 301(e) determining whetehr person agent his actions, performed authorized subsequently ratified controlling.'26 12 And Senator Taft, Chairman Committee authors bore name, less explaining results Senate: 'The conferees rejected Act.'27 accept startling argument want willing confer power 'accomodate' existence whenever find expedient furtherance fashioned 301. unequivocal statements Taft floor accepted Congressmen Senators who read heard assurances vote favor without altering, reducing impairing true statement man generally very able lawyer whom rely accurate, forthright explanations he connected. course impact enforcement all related provisions, arbitration. If, suggests, intention enacting obliteration soft euphemism 'accommodation,' Taft's flat disingenuous. impute him. 14 idea sanctions piecemeal requires acceptance unrealistic handles business. statutes continued force our system government, domain body careful discussion, expectation will faithful trust decision. resolution appears formal proceedings.28 Indeed, single called attention proposal revived adopted guise 'accommodation' pseudonym. 15 found anything else previous decisions indicate overwhelming evidence retain intact Brotherhood Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & R. Co.,29 places reliance, distinguishable several grounds. There strike defiance affirmative duty, imposed Railway itself, compelling settle disputes pressures railroad submitting Adjustment exclusive means determination 'minor' disputes.30 Here, hand, different compel particular, method settling nor impose requirement, either employers, inconsistent continuation picketing. addition, statute far now before us. indication debate Houses Joint Conference, proposals inapplicable. conclude 'that supporters opponents 1934 amendment compulsory limited field.'31 contend set up 'compulsory arbitration' 16 Textile Lincoln Mills,32 lesser reliance placed, equally distinguishable. merely violate submit arisen required dispute. upholding challenge pointed equitable case—a mandatory carry arbitrate—did enjoin kinds conduct withdrew powers courts.33 An stoppages, nonfraudulent encouraging would, however, precise subsections (a), (e) (i) unequivocally say prohibited.34 17 can Mills, implemented Steelworkers American Manufacturing Co.,35 Warrior Gulf Navigation Co.,36 Enterprise Wheel Car Corp.,37 reconsider overrule action refusing modify controlling commands To extent relied proposition process 'a kingpin policy,' founded predilections when Certainly suggestion undermine implying went 'forged policy' purpose. Consequently, see how implementing freed duty give regard application rest notion necessary effective. about merits it. so, go effectuate favoring Court's business review wisdom 18 Congress, Obedience directly affect 'congressional arbitrate disputes'38 impair arbitrable effective most, involved allowed enjoy benefits along gave him sue already out, enjoyment cost putting back activities. doubtless true, argued, gives worth get bar agreements. Strong arguments changed interest. fit violation concerned, originally provided. might, decide necessary, discarded through administrative machinery bill. Or neither methods satisfactory turn new approach. change, any, properly Congress—it makers, interpreters. Our task interpreting stands. problems statutes, choices constitutional powers. Where discernible crystal clear—we intent.39 20 dismissing Count petitioner's lack judgment affirming affirmed. 21 Affirmed. 22 FRANKFURTER took case. 23 BRENNAN, DOUGLAS HARLAN join, dissenting. 24 I believe reached wrong result answered questions Of it, 'repeal' two coexist, apparently senses. seek accommodation fullest possible central both. possible, follow path leads result—not justified odds earlier handling analogous woven intelligibly broader fabric decisions. I. 25 1947, authorizes Federal entertain '(s)uits *.' address remedies. As construed casts special schemes arbitration, holding favored settlement contracted for, then conclusive.1 time, 1932, proscribes various concerted dispute.' indispensable scheme agreement; thus grant essential uncrippled performance function 301.2 Therefore, beginning. Having held, not—go consider deal surface statutory commands. 26 long acted isolation. taken together, shape national policy. Accordingly, invariably achieve objective laws. See Co., 353 30, 77 635, 622; Graham Locomotive Firemen, 338 232, 70 14, 94 L.Ed. 22; Virginian Co. System Federation, 300 515, 562—563, 57 592, 81 789. insisted 'must (the Act) obvious preserved.'3 27 These inflexible point necessity irreconcilable setting us: nothing prevent 4's being accommodated just II. 28 availability accomplishment detrimental Norris-LaGuardia. makes plain. Norris-LaGuardia, since flout 'minor disputes' submission economic pressures. disputes,' meaningful Act—and chiefly addressed, namely, 'the strips weapon substituting reasonable alternative.'4 29 reasoning applicable equal enforce employer, terminal refrain striking them. embodied stresses sabotaged strong claim accommodating '(an injunction) alone effectively guard right,' Ass'n Machinists Street, 367 740, 773, 1784, 1802, 1141. employer's enforceable obligation 'reasonable alternative' weapon. major contributing Norris-LaGuardia—the at-largeness judges 'unlawful ends' means'5—is factor weighing River:6 commitment striking, viewed light overriding assist 30 event, settled 448, 912, 972. case, procedural requirements Norris-LaGuardia's 7, although fully applicable, frustrate court's arbitrate. strange, think, read, face inapt restrictions arbitrate; despite preclude absolutely ignores identical duty. III. 31 affords refuge prior *.'7 rejection outright imply hostility attempt accommodate pertinent Again, stems appreciated 'repeal,' complex becomes conclusion. First, appropriate discuss, done, statute. 32 words intimates limitation damage remedies asserted consists activity. simply contracts. Taking alone, irresistible implication employ regular arsenal appropriately situation. mean, course, afforded damages remedy. much, surely, Mills. reasons explicitly negates provision—in absence 301—would apply. attaching undue significance sections Act—from concludes 'not desirable.'8 Even analysis most deduced comparative while contexts, seem connection 33 Sound explain why acceptable settings, ill-suited fall short design activity Act9 lifts barrier Board—in cease-and-desist practices, interlocutory prosecuted practices. government litigation practices was, obviously, appropriate, definitely scope, predictable effect, devoid risk abuse misunderstanding. Much Taft-Hartley,10 repeals General seeks direction President, opinion—after having advised board inquiry—that imperil health safety. 34 Taft-Hartley11 litigant.12 restrain payment unauthorized payments nature bribes. Not problem dealt 'unusually sensitive important,' notes,13 clearly, predictably, narrowly confined kind injury; obviously threat 35 How posed broadly contract. understandably felt predict crop agreements, foresee settings become subjects litigation, forecast rules consequences unknowable, repeal, unthinkable. abandoning wholesale policies suits; implicate provisions. 36 knew intended, intended. 303 Taft-Hartley14 resulting introduced floor, well. Extended revealed sentiment feature, incorporated section's supporters, proposed only. form, Senate—and later House.15 Certainly, experience used confining invoked activity, intention. 37 fails position. inference least content seeming conflicts relatively manageable particular cases, afford best bound inscrutable silence wooden preference other. 38 suggest notes, section.16 enacted, available activity.17 ascertain Senate's suggested finally follows construe Committee's elimination leaving open possibility silence, directing opposition encountered.18 39 emphasize basic abandoned 301; routed employer. Enforced adherence commitments emerged dominant motif developing anti-strike policy; breaches contracts, threaten additional policy, prevail. Insistence strict threatens leading compelled arbitrate, restraining cut deep core bound, limiting appropriate. susceptibility concrete sort consistent technique lead, granting Accommodation intrude areas, vital ends, require unconditional surrender. IV. 40 Today's fitted harmoniously matters. Considered light, inescapably imaginable sound administration. 41 uniform doctrines judicially 972; cognizable state Charles Dowd Box Courtney, 368 502, 519, 483; 174 Teamsters Lucas Flour 369 95, 571, 593. 42 arises today's governing designed enhance opposite depriving enjoyed enactment. 43 On hand if, literal suggests19 holds,20 free development hard times. So unavailable channeled possible. Ironically, preferred instruments process, Mills forged Enunciation severely impeded. type fortuities locale process—depending 44 overlooked removal provide answer difficulties. literally, allowed.21 allowed, once again strange consequence taking away V. 45 deals crippling blow itself. Arbitration proved peace fosters use.22 undertakings pause committing themselves unions. deny desirability, indeed, necessity, grievance.23 says relief, amend substance plan peaceable settlements VI. 46 A entertaining until decides contractually holds effect; ordered condition obtaining Beyond this, must, warranted ordinary principles equity—whether occurring continue, threatened committed; caused irreparable injury employer; suffer denial issuance. 47 us, enjoys grievance. agrees '(T)here grievance.'24 past 'quickie' grievances. complaint, then, occurred occur principle applies. complaint's request injunction, remand directions sought—an repetitions. entail harm inflicted legitimate call feasibility futuro contempt (for striking) arbitrate) prospective adjudicated category short, great care draft decree equitably interests stake. 48 reverse further dissenting opinion. 'Suits representing employees industry affecting commerce defined chapter, organizations district parties, respect amount citizenship parties.' 61 Stat. 156, U.S.C. 185(a), U.S.C.A. 185(a). 'No temporary permanent (as herein defined) doing, singly concert, following acts: '(a) Ceasing employment; '(e) Giving publicity facts dispute, advertising, speaking, patrolling, fraud violence; '(i) Advising, urging, otherwise causing inducing violence heretofore specified 70, 104, 104. three counts, 3, Counts 2, prevailed below, 430. Atkinson 238, 1318. 187 F.Supp. 225. Id., 228. 290 F.2d 312. Chauffeurs, Helpers 795 Yellow Transit Freight Lines, Cir., 282 345. Both position below. W. L. Mead, Inc., 25, 217 6; Alcoa S.S. McMahon, 173 567; re Third Ave. Corp. (Lehman Quill), 192 971; H. Bull Steamship Seafarers' 250 326. 937, 378, 336. 73, 113, 113. allegations occurrences follows: July 1, six assigned #810 Crude Still stopped Shift area; '(b) September 17, employed Mason Department refused shift during entire day; Mechanical approximately noon midnight; Barrel middle afternoon picket line created prevented operators reporting 4:00 P.M. midnight shift, behalf five apprentice masons insufficient permit retention craft levels. '(c) March 28, 1958, 73 Rigging hour riggers entitled machinists. '(d) May 20, 3/4 boilermakers. 11, pipefitters dismantle remove pipe coils also. '(f) October Cranes Trucks eight independent contractor operate owned crane. '(g) November 19, 71 Boilermaking burners tank roof boilermakers task. '(h) 21, pursuance referred subparagraph (g) preceding, main entrance picketed barricaded, thereby preventing 800 shift. February 1959, 999 induced stop docked aggregate $2.19 pay reported late work.' 'In States, limited, hereby 'Whereas conditions, developed governmental owners property organize corporate forms ownership association, individual unorganized worker commonly helpless freedom labor, wherefore, decline associate fellows, self-organization, designation choosing, negotiate interference, restraint, coercion agents, self-organization protection; definitions limitations upon, enacted.' 102, 102. One re-evaluation revision applied Gregory, Law Collective Agreement, Mich.L.Rev. 635. author, urging states: 'After all, 1932 time ago drastically. Judges still confuse have, my opinion, lost contact reality. passage operated types output highest level. instance, well.' 645—646, n. 39. Stewart, No-Strike Clauses Courts, 59 673, 683; Rice, Paradox Law, Marq.L.Rev. 233. Lauf E. G. Shinner 323, 330, 58 578, 582, 872: 'We narrows definition statutes. determined according defined.' Hutcheson, 312 219, 234, 463, 467, 85 788, cited therein. note supra. abuses amply discussed occasions. Frankfurter Greene, Injunction. e.g., 235—236, 468; Milk Wagon Drivers' Lake Valley Farm Products, 311 91, 102—103, 122, 127, 128, 63. sufficient led substantial functioned nearly years. 185(e), provides: 'For section, 'agent' controlling.' This, dsigned previously 71, 106, U.S.C.A 106: officer member organization, liable officers, participation thereof.' 146, 155, amended, §§ 160(h), 178(b), 178(b). 157, 186(e), 186(e). stands proscribed unusually shown 186 enjoinable crime punishable fine imprisonment. 326, 331—332. 6, 10; Comment, Injunctions Judge-Made Law: Contemporary Role Yale L.J. 97—99. Another commentator, belief nevertheless admits decided leave suits. 233, 235. H.R. 3020, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., House, provided: 'SEC. 302.1—(a) Any proceeding representative party controversy, affects commerce, cause. employees, 23, 'An Judicial Code define sitting equity purposes,' party.' Legislative History Management 221—222. S. 1126, amended Senate. Leg.Hist. 151—152; 279—280. 111—112, 114, 239, 241—242. and, H.R.Conf.Rep. 510, U.S.Code Cong. Service p. 1135, pp. 41—42, 545—546. 66, 570. 93 Cong.Rec. 6445—6446, II 1544. Immediately remark, inserted Record summary 'When sixth paragraph subsection (8(a)) practice collective-bargaining objected making every courts. ultimately deletion 8(b)(5) conferred aggrieved retained (section 301).' 6443, 1539. (Emphasis supplied.) functioning insuring unintended declared. pressed Morse 303(a) secondary boycotts justify forbidden stated: 'Let me reply anyone author amendment. advice counsel committee. circumstances, lines Oregon.' 4872, 1396. 622. rested differences 31—32, 636. Order Telegraphers North Western 362 338—340, 80 761, 774. 39, 640. 458, 918. 339, 765, 766, protected distinguished ground. 'would creativity 4,' Cox, Current Problems Grievance Arbitration, Rocky Mt. L.Rev. 247, 256, fly historical unenjoinable 253. 363 564, 1343, 1403. 574, 1347, 1409. 593, 1358, 1424. 458—459, 919. ignored deprive law, allegedly discrimination River, deem compelling. Mfg. 1403; 1409; Corp., 174, L.ed.2d exclusively no-strike clause, saying, 105, 579: 'To traditional point, promote arbitral substitute warfare.' 639, 622, allowing 'defeat jurisdiction' arbitrator. 40, 41, See, S.Rep. 163, 72d 18; Injunction, 24—46, 200, 202. repeating incorporates disputes.' Ante, U.S., 205, S.Ct., 1334. added.) 10(h), 149, 160(h). 178, 178. 158, 301(e), mentioned Court, bearing problems. repeals, purposes, agency Its relevance showing anyway: effected anti- 1334, 19. 187, 187. 1323—1400; 571. Report, debate, confinement bit quoted Congressional Record. What little isolated insertion has, laid commences: McCarroll Los Angeles County Council, 49 Cal.2d 45, 315 P.2d 322. Compare supra, statute, 1441, 'of jurisdiction.' 72, 108, 108. acknowledges, comply Consistently Lucas, charge contempt. Rfg.

Category: 6