Document: 406 U.S. 487 92 S.Ct. 1710 32 L.Ed.2d 248 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 150, AFL-CIO, Petitioner,v.FLAIR BUILDERS, INC. No. 71—41. Argued April 10, 1972. Decided May 30, Syllabus Petitioner union brought an action in June 1968 seeking damages and injunctive relief for respondent's alleged breach of their collective-bargaining agreement, charging that respondent had 'continually violated' the contract since 1966 by refusing to abide any its terms. The agreement provided arbitration 'of difference . which cannot be settled within 48 hours occurrence.' District Court held 'was bound memorandum arbitrate labor disputes limits clause,' but found guilty laches dismissed action. Appeals affirmed. Held: As found, parties did agree and, existence scope clause being matters judicial decision, phrase 'any difference' encompasses issue broad sweep coverage. Pp. 490—492. 7 Cir., 440 F.2d 557, reversed. Bernard M. Baum, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. J. Robert Murphy, as amicus curiae, support judgment below. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 In November 1968, petitioner United States Northern Illinois, agreement. complaint charged 1, 1966, terms, including wage, hiring hall, fringe benefit provisions. incorporated terms master contracts between a local contractors' association, hereto representatives, 2 petitioner's failure state claim noted, not pass upon, two additional contentions company—' (1) no was ever created, (2) if consummated, subsequently abandoned union.' 68—C—2091 (April 14, 1969) (unreported). court suggested binding effect contract. When company refused either or 'the subsequent issues possible violations,' filed amended compel arbitration. 3 moving dismiss complaint, again denied argued Union's delay constituted barring enforcement initially motion, holding 'if employer consented collective bargaining should decided arbitrator rather than federal courts.' Id. (Aug. 26, But after conducting evidentiary hearing on clause, entered order dismissing complaint. (Dec. 4, Though agreeing there been contact from time signing 1964 until summer 1968. It therefore concluded Union enforcement: 4 'The contemplates initiation proceedings dispute is occurrence, further provides Board Arbitrators shall meet 'within six (6) days.' Yet demand made this case April, 1969, almost five years Flair's first comply with nearly three inception sought arbitrated. 5 'To require Flair respond, through arbitration, general charges noncompliance provisions allegedly beginning more before suit would impose extreme burden defense efforts. (T)o reward plaintiff own inaction subject defendant risk liability because actions taken reliance plaintiff's apparent abandonment.' 6 affirmed divided vote. 557 (1971). Its read hold still question decision 'whether may properly basis resulting dilatory notification regard dispute.' Id., at 557—558. then addressed Court's John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston, 376 543, 84 909, 11 898 (1964). There ground union, among other things, failed follow grievance procedures required We ordered '(o)nce it determined are obligated submit matter 'procedural' questions grow out bear final disposition left arbitrator.' S.Ct., 918. distinguished procedural concerned 'intrinsic' untimeliness, relating solely requirements Here, hand, one 'extrinsic' based violation give timely notice under equitable doctrine laches. Therefore, according court, province decide, "we indulging judicially unwarranted task interpreting agreement." F.2d, 560, quoting Amalgamated Clothing Workers Ironall Factories Co., 386 586, 591 (CA6 1967). granted certiorari, 404 982, 445, 30 366 contends erred limiting cases delay, whether not, 'necessarily involves determination merits bears directly upon outcome accordingly decide.' Brief 21. words, argues even have agreed issue, requires resolve integral part underlying dispute. 8 need reach posed petitioner, we find fact here. Although denies signed contrary clause.' That applies difference,' whatever be, occurrence. nothing limit language except class circumstance, must conclude meant what they said—that include raised trial, referred decision.* ignored plain meaning deciding issue. 9 Of course, say here diminishes responsibility determine well remains decision. See Atkinson Sinclair Refining 370 238, 241, 82 1318, 1320, 462 (1962). once finds that, here, arbitrate, extends them, particular grievances barred arbitrable Compare Iowa Beef Packers, In. Thompson, 405 228, 859, 31 165 (1972). Having obliged defense, 'extrinsic,' arbitral process. 10 Judgment POWELL, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting. 12 Through exercise formal logic majority reaches result I believe injust. A full statement facts necessary put proper perspective. Builders, Inc. (Flair), small independent construction firm. International Operating Engineers, Local AFL—CIO (the Union), many contractor associations area. On 12, 1964, adopted then-existing future associations. only employee Union. This joined Union, employment about weeks later. His job filled successively employees who operated piece equipment owned Flair. None these successor belonged 13 ensuing years, prospered added modest amount equipment. By 1967 four pieces. Throughout period all nonunion employees. During heard 14 without knowledge, into new contained provision that: 'Should arise such submitted arbitration.' arbitrators days could settled. party received execution 'bound' virtue incorporation 1964. 15 forgot considered operation consequence. For long everyone seemed happy, things went well. Then entered, business agent visited visit were nonunion, he also complained wages. recognize obligation 16 After lapse another months, 7, against specific performance monetary $100,000. motion cause sustained differences. Pursuant leave 3, alleging 18, demanded 'immediate arbitration' refused. answer amend asserted various defenses, abandonment asserting purported rights claims thereunder.' 17 hearing, 'guilty unjustified defendant,' Seventh Circuit, judge dissenting, bar belated assertion right 18 today, looks parties, holds: 19 '(T)hat decision.'1 20 given normal contract, refers hours, wages, benefits, seniority, grievances, customarily arising intended enforceability entire Indeed, itself construe cover it.2 21 my dissent does turn interpretation nature. customary situation invoked where exist enforceable. case, relied substance defenses: (i) signed) Union; (ii) construes available affirmative defense. essence latter conduct thereon, estopped precluded enforcing clause. position courts correctly held: 22 factual context appeal thus narrows us contains so making vaguely delineated known justified submission 559 23 Court, testimony emphasized imposed prolonged unexplained ambiguity positions: 24 Especially when, demonstrated understandably soon inception. Plaintiff has offered explanation enforcement; yet 25 am aware strong policy considerations favor union-management disputes. Sons, neither Wiley, nor forced circumstances these, clearly applicable asserted. advised recall Chief Marshall's admonition: 26 '(I)t desirable terminate every real merits, those fairly end litigation power do so.' Church Hubbart, Cranch 187, 232, L.Ed. 249 (1804). 27 today's seems clear. imposes 'extreme burden' requiring Cardozo observed rare catastrophic experience vast men.3 If survives excursion requires, return already ruled favor, surely possesses tenacity better financial resources average business. One doubt businessmen possible. 28 far reaching law labor-management relations. appears long-accepted jurisdiction now displaced whenever similar involved. can longer courts, defenses go contract? Does vest historic fraud duress me qualified decide kind. These 'labor law,' peculiarly consider. They traditional equity below appropriately resolved. affirm Appeals. * Respondent's attorney admitted much contending arbitrator, 'laches thing. along question, suppose, you got ..' App. 93. noted knowledge Flair, when reason Union—from years—had abondoned initial employees, demands notices kind history remarkable corroborates view conscious anything. Even jobsite discovered 'a non-union operating equipment,' some months No original possibility circumstances, respect, record 'that arbitrate.' n. supra. B. Cardozo, Nature Judicial Process 128 (1921).

Category: 6