Legal Document

363 U.S. 564 80 Supreme Court Reporter 1343 4 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 1403 UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner,v.AMERICAN MANUFACTURING CO. Number 360. Argued April 27, 1960. Decided June 20, Mr. David E. Feller, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. John S. Carriger, Chattanooga, Tenn., respondent. Opinion of the by Justice DOUGLAS, announced BRENNAN. 1 This suit was brought petitioner union in District to compel arbitration a 'grievance' that petitioner, acting one Sparks, member, had filed with respondent, Sparks' employer. The employer defended on ground (1) Sparks is estopped from making his claim because he few days previously settled workmen's compensation against company basis permanently partially disabled, (2) not physically able do work, and (3) this type dispute arbitrable under collective bargaining agreement question. 2 provided during its term there would be 'no strike,' unless refused abide decision arbitrator. sets out detailed grievance procedure provision (regarded as standard form) all disputes between parties 'as meaning, interpretation application provisions agreement.'1 3 reserves management power suspend or discharge any employee 'for cause.'2 It also contains will employ promote employees principle seniority 'where ability efficiency are equal.'3 left work due an injury while off action benefits. case settled, physician expressing opinion made him 25% 'permanently disabled.' That September 9. Two weeks later which charged entitled return job virtue agreement. Respondent arbitrate brought. held having accepted settlement permanent partial disability, employment rights granted motion summary judgment. Appeals affirmed, 264 Federal Reporter, 2nd 624, different reasons. After reviewing evidence it 'a frivolous, patently baseless one, subject agreement.' Id., at page 628. here writ certiorari, 361 881, 152, 118. Section 203(d) Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Statutes-at-Large 154, 29 Code KF62 § 173(d), Annotated KF65 U5 states, 'Final adjustment method agreed upon hereby declared desirable arising over existing collective-bargaining * *' policy can effectuated only if means chosen their differences given full play. 5 A state contrary could have crippling effect arbitration. International Association Machinists versus Cutler-Hammer, Inc., 271 App.Div. 917, 67 N.Y.S.2d 317, affirmed 297 N.Y., 519, 74 North Eastern 464. 'If meaning contract sought arbitrated beyond dispute, cannot anything said provide arbitration.' 918, 318. lower courts instant like preoccupation ordinary law. requires claims might unwilling entertain. In context plant industry may assume proportions judges ignorant. Yet, submit grievances arbitration, merely those court deem meritorious. There no exception strike' clause none therefore should read into clause, since quid pro quo other.4 question whether mind equity claim. Arbitration stabilizing influence serves vehicle handling arise 6 calls submission categories describes, irrespective them our role developing meaningful body law govern enforcement agreements, we think special heed agreements negotiated purpose they intended serve. See Lewis Benedict Coal Corp., 459, 468, 489, 495, 442. function very limited when questions confined ascertaining party seeking face governed contract. Whether moving right wrong these circumstances deprived arbitrator's judgment, judgment connotes bargained for. 7 courts, therefore, business weighing merits grievance,5 considering particular claim, determining language written instrument support processing even frivolous therapeutic values who part environment quite unaware.6 8 claimed violated specific took position clause. was, 'the application' been ordered. When judiciary undertakes determine guise interpreting usurps regime entrusted tribunal. 9 Reversed. 10 FRANKFURTER concurs result 11 WHITTAKER, believing lacked jurisdiction validly exclusive Board Arbitrators (Textile Workers Lincoln Mills, 353 448, 77 912, 923, 972), opinion. 12 BLACK consideration case. 13 BRENNAN, whom HARLAN joins, concurring. 14 While & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions join Court's opinions Nos. 443, 360 538, add word 443 15 each two cases issue concerns but promise—the promise dealing matter, industrial relations employers employees. Other promises contained beside point unless, terms promise, relevant interpretation. And emphasize this, itself free make broad narrow wish, compulsion requiring include such found simply reference dictionary definitions words use, commercial clauses. Words agreement, rightly viewed charter system self-government, statute, understood background gave rise inclusion. avoids prescription inflexible rules promises. Guidance identifying various considerations take account construing clause—considerations milieu national labor policy. particularly underscored arbitral process presupposes wanted informed arbitrator, precisely reason it. Therefore, asked enforce ordinarily refrain involving substantive 16 To sure, creature contract, must always inquire, seeks invoke aid force reluctant table, dispute. sense, 'arbitrable' inescapably court. 17 On examining conclude commits 'dispute, difference, disagreement, controversy nature character.' With finding exhausted function, except order Similarly, although arbitrator empowered interpret apply within Again court, without more, send construction has breached refusing 18 American, deals request 'standard' form provides '(a)ny disputes, misunderstandings, *.' Since argued But rejects position, saying threshold question, itself, judge clearly contrary. However, finds asserts involve necessarily does construction. 19 Warrior essentially is, grievance. contrast however, excludes area arbitration—'matters strictly management.' Because different, scope court's inquiry broader. Here, required examine ascertain contracting shall 'function If delve extent inquiring expressly management,' why error evaluate history same purpose? Neat logical distinctions answer. concludes appropriate regard factors process, admonish judicial search explicit brings cover exclusion vague broad.' hazard going further amply demonstrated what below did. inconclusive evidence, way implied covenants good faith fair pleased—which mean completely destroy work. 20 ambiguity suggests were generally more concerned render decisions than restricting jurisdiction. course otherwise narrow, specific, inference then permissible manifested greater interest confining arbitrator; presumption arbitrability somewhat freer merits. 21 makes being no-strike understand principles today depends presence 22 joins observations. follows: 'Any adjusted herein provided, submitted decision. 'The shall, authority to, subtract from, modify Disputes relating discharges matters loss pay carry award back whole determined Arbitration. final conclusively binding both parties, agree observe same. works, direction working force, layout routine including hire, suspend, transfer, discipline cause, cause being: infraction rules, inefficiency, insubordination, contagious disease harmful others, other tend reduce impair operation; lay lack reserved Company, conflict part: Company Union fully recognize factor selection promotion, lay-off, re-employment, filling vacancies, where equal. basis.' Cf. Structural Steel Ornamental Iron Ass'n. Shopmens Local Union, 172 F.Supp. 354, sued breach New Bedford Defense Products Division 1113, Cir., 258 522, 526. Cox, Current Problems Law Grievance Arbitration, 30 Rocky Mt.L.Rev. 247, 261 (1958) writes: typical cover, limitation, concerning Its restrict meritorious two-sided still less consider two-sided. Frivolous often taken, expected What man considers another find meritorious, common knowledge circles safety valve troublesome complaints. Under seems proper every complainant bases objection useless act outweighed cathartic value arbitrating dangers excessive intervention.'

Classification Label: 6