Court Opinion

ID: 9446681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:16:09.260789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:44.695920
License: Public Domain

SHACKELFORD MILLER, Jr., Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I am of the opinion that the District Court did not have jurisdiction of this case, and accordingly, the judgment should be reversed.
The present action is purely one to enforce an arbitration award for the benefit of individual employees. A complete and adequate remedy is provided by the state courts. Diversity of citizenship does not exist.
Sec. 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, Sec. 185(a), Title 29 U.S.C.A., under which federal jurisdiction is claimed, does not in my opinion confer such jurisdiction.
Sec. 801(a) is expressly limited to suits for “violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization.” (Emphasis added.) If any contract has been breached in this case, it is not the collective bargaining contract between the appellant and the Union. That contract required the appellant to arbitrate a grievance, which obligation was complied with without court action. The obligations which this action seeks to enforce arise out of the breach by the appellant of the separate, individual contracts of employment between the appellant and the individual employees. J. I. Case Co. v. N. L. R. B., 321 U.S. 332, 334-336, 64 S.Ct. 576, 88 L.Ed. 762. Such contracts are not included in the provisions of Sec. 301(a). In my opinion this case is controlled by the ruling of the Supreme Court in Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 348 U.S. 437, 75 S.Ct. 489, 99 L.Ed. 510, in which it was held that the District Court did not have jurisdiction of an action by a labor organization to recover from an employer unpaid wages in favor of individual employees, alleged to be owing by reason of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the Union. In this case, as in that case, although the relief sought stems from the collective bargaining agreement, the specific claim arises out of the employer’s refusal to pay to individual employees the compensation which he is required to pay by reason of the separate contract of employment between the employer and the individual employee.
The majority opinion relies upon Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 912, 1 L.Ed.2d 972. That case does not cover the situation here. It held that the District Court had jurisdiction under Sec. 301(a) of a suit by a labor organization to require the employer to arbitrate a grievance, as its collective bargaining contract with the Union required it to do. It enforced the contract between the employer and the Union, which Sec. 301 (a) specifically refers to. It did not deal *738with the collection of unpaid compensation claimed under the individual contracts of employment with the individual employees, which the Court dealt with in the Westinghouse case and which are involved in this case. The present action is not to compel the employer to arbitrate a grievance.
The majority opinion gives the District Court additional jurisdiction which is not provided for by the words of the statute. It may be, as stated in the majority opinion, that if the District Court has jurisdiction to compel arbitration, it is advisable that it also have jurisdiction to enforce the resulting arbitration award. It seems to me there are two answers to that contention.
First, the available jurisdiction under Sec. 301(a) was not invoked or used in this case to obtain the arbitration and the resulting award. The enforcement of the award is not a follow-up or continuing exercise of a jurisdiction previously acquired. It is a new and independent action.
Second, regardless of how advisable it may be, the statute does not provide it. The jurisdiction of federal district courts is limited and defined strictly by statute. United States ex rel. State of Wisconsin v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association, 7 Cir., 248 F.2d 804, 808; Fisch v. General Motors Corp., 6 Cir., 169 F.2d 266, 272, certiorari denied 335 U.S. 902, 69 S.Ct. 405, 93 L.Ed. 436. It is limited to that which is either expressly or by necessary implication conferred on them by the statute granting such jurisdiction. Trust Co. of Chicago v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 7 Cir., 183 F.2d 640, 642, 21 A.L.R.2d 238; Badger v. Reich Bros. Const. Co., 5 Cir., 161 F.2d 289, 290, affirmed 333 U.S. 163, 68 S.Ct. 587, 92 L.Ed. 614, rehearing denied 333 U.S. 878, 68 S.Ct. 900, 92 L.Ed. 1153. It is carefully guarded against expansion by judicial interpretation. American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 17, 71 S.Ct. 534, 95 L.Ed. 702. If the jurisdiction should be enlarged, Congress can easily do so.